The AM Forum

THE AM BULLETIN BOARD => QSO => Topic started by: k4kyv on October 06, 2007, 03:08:43 AM



Title: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 06, 2007, 03:08:43 AM
You will notice this bandplan contains specific limitations on occupied bandwidth, with 6 KHz maximum for DSB A.M., denoted by (*), listed for two small segments in the 80m band at 3600-3625 and 3875-3900.  No AM segments are listed in 160 or 40, or in any other band except 10m.
Quote
Bandwidths
The number in the bandwidth column always refers to maximum allowed bandwidth.

I suspect ARRL will soon begin to promote compliance in the US, and possibly even petition the FCC to incorporate the bandwidth limitations into Part 97.  Remember, they mentioned "revisiting" the defunct bandwidth issue at a later time, and ARRL is the U.S. "member society" of IARU, so it would appear that the League was involved the formulation of this bandplan.  Note the prominent ARRL personalities listed on the IARU website. I have seen nothing in QST about this, nor has there been any solicitation for input from the US amateur community. I couldn't find any mention of this new bandplan on the ARRL website.

Click here to view the Bandplan:
http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

What is the IARU?
http://www.iaru.org/

Quote
PURPOSE OF THE IARU BANDPLANS

The IARU bandplans have been compiled and modified over the years to reflect changes in operating requirements and are to be used as a guideline by the individual societies of each country. Unique situations in certain countries may require slight modification to that individual country's own bandplan but the impact of any changes must take into consideration their effect on other countries.

These bandplans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except in some countries in which the bandplans are written into the national regulations. The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to the IARU bandplans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to be this way. The plans are prepared in a democratic way with input from any country's member society. The plans are discussed, modified and voted upon at IARU Regional General Assemblies with each country (large or small) having only one vote. If an individual or group is not satisfied with the bandplans as they are and has a suggestion for improvement then he should submit it, with as much documentation as possible, to his IARU member society.

(emphasis mine)



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AB5S on October 06, 2007, 02:26:02 PM
Re: The new IARU band plan recommendations, restricting AM
operation to a small window on 75 meters and 29 MC-
windows which already get no respect from the SSB thugs.

Unless the FCC- the only legitimate law enforcement agency
by whom I am bound, officially and formally says otherwise,
 I have no intention of restricting my AM operation
in accordance with the demands of *any* organization
which I have not joined and by which I am not represented.
I try not to interfere with anyone, even the thousands of SSB ops
who haven' t the common decency to return the courtesy to me
and who go out of their way to interfere with my AM operation,
even in the "AM Ghetto."
But I will not be subject to make-believe "rules"
produced by SSB bigots.
If we AM operators tuck our meek little heads,
if we give in to the "oh let's not make a fuss" sheep,
if we pretend conflict will go away by itself *again,*
then we deserve exactly what we're going to get.

Dave AB5S


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KA8WTK on October 06, 2007, 03:05:36 PM
  You tend to wonder what idiot typed this plan up. As Don says, there is no plan for AM operation on 40 meters, but there is an AM calling frequency (?) and 7290 is listed as an "emergency" frequency.
  This appears, on the surface, even more ridiculous than the previous ARRL proposals. The FCC agreed at that time that these types of limitations were not in the best interest of Amatuer Radio. Nothing has changed since then.
  I did a search of the ARRL page and could not, searching on IARU, find any mention of this bandplan. Maybe I did not look deep enough. Thank the powers that be that the IARU is not a regulatory agency.
  If this does come up, the fur will fly! Screw their ************ band plan. Talk to me at Nearfest and I can really tell you how I feel about such nonsense!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 06, 2007, 06:09:54 PM
  I did a search of the ARRL page and could not, searching on IARU, find any mention of this bandplan.

The web page may be a little confusing, since it displays two versions of the Region II band plan, the current one and the one going into effect at the beginning of the year.

Click on the IARU website at http://www.iaru.org/

At the top of the page click on "Region II".  That will open a new page titled INTERNATIONAL AMATEUR RADIO  UNION Region 2 (http://www.iaru-regionii.org/).  At the top of the page, click on the link titled New HF Band Plan Adopted at Region 2 General Assembly, Brazil, September, 2007.  That opens the new band plan.

There is also a link at the left side of the page.  It opens the current band plan (http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html) that went into effect in 1998.  It would be out of  date, since it  doesn't reflect the expansion of US phone privileges, but it makes no mention of bandwidth.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 06, 2007, 07:46:30 PM
It "would limit AM operation" only if we let it.

Probably time for someone to put together a complaint to the IARU asking that the ARRL be de-certified as the representative club for the United States.

The IARU charter provides for a process of ejecting such a representative if it can be shown the group has acted against the interests of licensees.

That shouldn't be too hard to do.

Go for it.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 06, 2007, 08:05:07 PM
The last time I researched the IARU Region 2 staff, which was a couple of years ago, I came up with some fellow by the name of Dave Sumner as it's secretary.  Ever hear of him?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on October 06, 2007, 08:20:12 PM
To echo what I posted on the AM reflector: Having looked at the 'bandplan', I will not be adhering to these guidelines! Even SSB at 2700 Hz sounds like highly percolated fecal matter!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 06, 2007, 08:49:18 PM
The new bandplan is essentially the ARRL's latest attempt to get their regulation by bandwidth agenda instituted by now going around the FCC to the IARU.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 06, 2007, 10:44:31 PM
The new bandplan is essentially the ARRL's latest attempt to get their regulation by bandwidth agenda instituted by now going around the FCC to the IARU.

Ah yes, another ARRL conspiracy!  ;D Do you seriously believe the ARRL has the power over all these countries that are also members of Region 2? Remember, each country has only one vote. One might also wonder how many of these voting countries actually have any active AM operators as fodder for input.
Quote
The Countries of Region 2
Anguilla | Antigua-Barbuda |  Argentina | Aruba | Bahamas | Barbados | Belize | Bermuda | Bolivia | Brazil | British Virgin Islands | Canada  Cayman Islands | Chile | Colombia | Costa Rica | Cuba | Dominica | Dominican Republic | Ecuador | El Salvador | Grenada | Guadeloupe  Guatemala | Guyana | Haiti | Honduras | Jamaica | Martinique | Mexico | Montserrat | Netherlands Antilles | Nicaragua | Panama  Paraguay | Peru | St. Kitts and Nevis | St. Lucia | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | Suriname | Trinidad and Tobago | Turks and Caicos  United States of America | Uruguay | Venezuela

And, here are the Officers and Directors for Region 2:
http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Officers_and_Directors.html (http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Officers_and_Directors.html)

It's great to see that the existence of the "ARRL black robe-black hat gangsters" are still tweaking some in the amateur radio community. ;D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on October 06, 2007, 11:50:27 PM
Pete said:
Quote
Ah yes, another ARRL conspiracy!   Do you seriously believe the ARRL has the power over all these countries that are also members of Region 2?

Then why even bring it up, Pete??  Sumner is a jackass! :P


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 07, 2007, 12:58:58 PM
I have exchanged emails with the titular head of the IARU "region 2" which this suggested band plan would affect.

Rod Stafford says there was a working group that spent two years preparing the proposal that the full IARU has now approved.

He has not responded to my question as to whether the working group and the full IARU were informed of the League's failed bandwidth proposal to U.S. regulators.

I have telephoned him, got his answering machine, and now have emailed him requesting a schedule to discuss the problems the IARU Region 2 plan now creates.

I urge others with an interest in quashing this plan to do the same.

The chief problem this IARU plan creates comes with its advocacy that it be promoted to regulatory agencies. This instantly creates a conflict with the overwhelming opposition already expressed against the similar plan proposed and consequently withdrawn by the club in Newington.

The same club (ARRL) happens to be the representative group at the IARU, and the IARU's administration, as Tom points out, is itself populated by current and former League managers.

This can work to the advantage of those opposed, by underscoring the prior knowledge ARRL types unquestionably had about lack of support among licensees in the affected region about a similar bandwidth-based system of coordination.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 07, 2007, 01:52:36 PM
The latest draft of the Canadian band plan may be of interest regarding this matter.

RAC Draft HF Band Plan (July 8, 2007) (http://www.rac.ca/service/RAC_Draft_HF_Band_PlanR1.pdf)

You will note that the "SSB" designation in the original draft was changed to "Phone", apparently as a result of correspondence generated by discussion on this Forum.

But we should be aware that this is not necessarily the final document:
Quote
No plan can remain static as International regulations and technology advances. At this time the IARU Region 2 HF BP Committee is also revising their plan. Since Canada is in region 2, our plan must be congruent with the overall plan for North and South America. This Canadian plan uses some of the information from an early Region 2 draft but will have to be updated when the final version of the Region 2 plan is released.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 07, 2007, 02:25:33 PM
It is risky to leave unchallenged a defective proposal or "plan" from any group whose influence could affect our interests.

The more influential the group, the more risk presented.

Unfortunately, the IARU carries just enough historic credibility that any plans it puts forth could be rubber-stamped by other groups and regulatory agencies.

That's why it is worth pushing back on this idea from the IARU, and documenting very early the problems it would create if implemented.

Fortunately, by so doing, we have a chance to curtail any assumptions that such a plan is acceptable simply because no one has said to the contrary.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 07, 2007, 02:52:31 PM
Paul,
I think that your approach is a very good one.  It is interesting that when the failed ARRL petition to the FCC was asking for 9 kHz. for AM that the change proposed now is asking for 6 kHz.
- - - - - - - -
bio of Rod Stafford W6ROD:
Rod Stafford, W6ROD, is International Affairs Vice President of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), the national association for Amateur Radio. The ARRL Board of Directors reelected him to his third term in January 2004. He is very involved with Amateur Radio issues within the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) Region 2 organization, and has held the position of Region 2 Secretary since 2001.
An Amateur Extra class licensee, Stafford first obtained his Amateur Radio license in the mid-70s, and held previous call signs WD6AKS and KB6ZV.
He is a former Section Manager for the Santa Clara Valley Section, and a former Pacific Division Director. He has held the position of Second Vice President, First Vice
President, and then was President of the League from 1995 to 2000. Stafford served as a Director of IARU Region 2 (1998-2001), and has attended numerous IARU regional conferences and IARU Administrative Council meetings.
His interests in Amateur Radio extend to HF operation and VHF/UHF operation.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

IARU Region 2 Conference Completes Its Work in Brasilia:
from The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 38
Website: http://www.arrl.org/ on September 21, 2007

IARU Region 2 Conference Completes Its Work in Brasilia:
2 excerpts:

1. Completing a week that included lengthy committee meetings and a half-day tour of Brazil's capital city, the delegates to the 16th IARU Region 2 General Assembly in Brasilia met in Plenary assembly on Friday, September 14 to complete their work. Members of the ARRL's delegation included President Joel Harrison, W5ZN; Vice President Kay Craigie, N3KN, and husband Carter, N3AO; CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ; Southeastern Division Director Frank Butler, W4RH; Chief Technology Officer Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, and Technical Relations Specialist Jon Siverling, WB3ERA.

2. The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008. The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive Committee.

- - - - - -


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 07, 2007, 05:35:29 PM
Here is the Region I bandplan, which covers Europe, Africa, Middle East and Northern Asia:

IARU REGION 1 HF BAND PLAN – Effective 1st January 2006 (http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf)

The charts list "MAX BANDWIDTH" for phone frequencies as 2700 Hz.  But there is also a footnote that reads as follows:

Quote
Amplitude modulation (AM) may be used in the telephony sub-bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users. (NRRL Davos 05).

AM is not "restricted" to any specific segments within the phone allocations.

I was told that Germany's government regulations impose a strict bandwidth limit that precludes AM operation.  However, it appears that AM (A3E) is permitted on all bands except 160m:

http://www.amateurradio.uni-halle.de/law/dvafug.de.html
http://www.amateurradio.uni-halle.de/law/vfg1990132.de.html

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 07, 2007, 08:29:11 PM
eham.net quotes the club in Newington as acknowledging a role by the sneaky, intransigent, special interest lobbyist PAUL RINALDO, 75, who is the same misguided person who pushed the bandwidth petition through the ARRL's Board of Directors.
~~~~~~
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008. The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive Committee.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 08, 2007, 08:19:05 AM
Even though Industry Canada already imposes a bandwidth limitation on full-carrier DSB AM, the other facets of the IARU plan risk allowing an unsavory mix of digital and analog signals. The IARU plan would cause problems.

IARU Region 2 update

Paul Courson Mon, Oct 8, 2007 at 8:14 AM
To: VE3IAY, Richard Ferch, VP, RAC

Hi Richard,

I corresponded with you a while ago discussing updates to Canada's
voluntary band plan, and the idea of making voice activities the
category of "phone" rather than SSB. Thank you for helping see to it
AM was not unwittingly constrained in your terminology.

Today I write to caution the RAC against any early adoption of the
IARU Region 2 band plan that has recently been approved by the full
IARU to take effect in January.

There are several people from the ARRL who, for unknown reasons, have
pushed through some elements of their group's failed bandwidth
petition that had been presented earlier to the Federal Communications
Commission. This petition drew overwhelming opposition and was
consequently withdrawn by their group.

The suspicion is that the League proponents of that plan have now
pushed it through the IARU as a Region 2 band plan.

There is likely to again be an opposition response to this move that
hopefully will delay or forestall a bandwidth-based specification as
it now sits at the IARU.

Kindly delay any early moves to align Canada's band plan with the IARU
Region 2 scheme since it may not end up the way it now looks.

Thanks,

Paul Courson
WA3VJB


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 08, 2007, 11:39:51 AM
The IARU Band Plan has no force of law or regulation, and does not take any precedence over FCC regulations.  IARU is a voluntary international amateur radio organisation, sort of a "super ARRL".  It is supposed to look out for the interests of amateur radio wordwide, particularly regarding the periodic WARC conferences. It is a loose international confederation of ARRL and the national amateur radio societies of other participating nations.  So why should we be overly concerned?

The problem is, the band plan sets the stage for regulatory agencies in the various countries to adopt part or all the band plan as "law" in their own countries.  ARRL and other mainstream amateur radio groups may begin to exert pressure on US hams to "follow the Plan".  Various individuals and groups may follow suit and formally petition the FCC to adopt some or all of its provisions into Part 97. 

Even if ARRL goes public with the notion that the band plan is merely a suggestion to be followed at one's own discretion on a voluntary basis, we will undoubtedly have the constant annoyance of self-righteous "radio cops" attempting to break into our QSO's to "remind" us that we "out of band", or that our signals are "too wide", according to provisions in the band plan.  Or at minimum, they will noisily proclaim us to be "lids" because we choose to operate outside the plan.

Many radio-cop types will simply fail to understand that the band plan is voluntary and not mandatory under the FCC rules. 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 08, 2007, 12:33:37 PM
Hmmmmm, does this mean that the "AM exception" and "9kc AM bandwidth" in the ARRL petition to the FCC is starting to look better to you guys now!?

I couldn't resist that!

Mack

Low Blow Mack ;D Don't get them all excited!

I seem to recall the current ARRL band plan doesn't agree with the current IARU Region 2 band plan either.

In looking at some of the countries that have a vote, Bermuda already has it in their regulations that AM cannot exceed 3 KHz bandwidth; Aruba requires a written approval to even operate AM there. Seems to me I remember reading somewhere, and my Spanish isn't that great to confirm, but some countries in South, and maybe even in Central America, have regulations that don't permit, or greatly restrict, any AM operations. If you already restrict it, or don't permit it, preserving it isn't high on your list in regards to band plans. The bottom line is that each country in this region has one vote, whether you have 600,000 hams or 6 hams in your country.

Given that the original bandwidth proposal was started several years ago, and its been stated that discussions for this Revised Region 2 band plan was also started several years ago, it could be that various voting members of Region 2 found portions of the ARRL plan attractive enough to incorporate them, or "sell the idea", into this revised plan. One would have to be a "fly on the wall" to hear who gave the best sales pitch.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 08, 2007, 01:05:43 PM
Quote
you guys

Who are "you guys"?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 08, 2007, 10:34:34 PM
Hmmmmm, does this mean that the "AM exception" and "9kc AM bandwidth" in the ARRL petition to the FCC is starting to look better to you guys now!?

Nope!  It still doesn't make the ARRL plan look any better than it originally was.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 09, 2007, 10:00:00 AM
Quote
Amfone.net as a group.

Do you actually think all forum members have the same opinion on this?

That would include you, so it should be "us" and not you guys.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 11, 2007, 02:55:27 PM
I have e-mailed the following to most hams in my address book:

Subject: ARRL via IARU Does It To The AM'ers Again (Please Pass Along.)

Hi Mark and others,

The new IARU Region 2 Band Plan .pdf file is attached.

Have you heard of this late development:

IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JAN 2008, would limit AM operation.

160 meters – no AM.

 80 meters – AM in 3600 – 3625 and 3875 - 3900 segments only, 6 kHz. occupied    BW.

 40 meters – no AM.

 30 meters – no AM. (AM not allowed now.)

 20 meters – no AM.

 17 meters – no AM.

 15 meters – no AM.

 12 meters – no AM.

 10 meters – AM allowed 29000 – 29300, 6 kHz. occupied BW.

- - - - - - - - -
De Don K4KYV:

You will notice this bandplan contains specific limitations on occupied bandwidth, with 6 KHz maximum for DSB A.M., denoted by (*), listed for two small segments in the 80m band at 3600-3625 and 3875-3900.  No AM segments are listed in 160 or 40, or in any other band except 10m.

Bandwidths
The number in the bandwidth column always refers to maximum allowed bandwidth.

PURPOSE OF THE IARU BANDPLANS

The IARU bandplans have been compiled and modified over the years to reflect changes in operating requirements and are to be used as a guideline by the individual societies of each country. Unique situations in certain countries may require slight modification to that individual country's own bandplan but the impact of any changes must take into consideration their effect on other countries.

These bandplans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except in some countries in which the bandplans are written into the national regulations. The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to the IARU bandplans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to be this way. The plans are prepared in a democratic way with input from any country's member society.  The plans are discussed, modified and voted upon at IARU Regional General Assemblies with each country (large or small) having only one vote. If an individual or group is not satisfied with the bandplans as they are and has a suggestion for improvement then he should submit it, with as much documentation as possible, to his IARU member society.
----

I suspect ARRL will soon begin to promote compliance in the US, and possibly even petition the FCC to incorporate the bandwidth limitations into Part 97.  Remember, they mentioned "revisiting" the defunct bandwidth issue at a later time, and ARRL is the U.S. "member society" of IARU, so it would appear that the League was involved the formulation of this bandplan.  Note the prominent ARRL personalities listed on the IARU website. I have seen nothing in QST about this, nor has there been any solicitation for input from the US amateur community. I couldn't find any mention of this new bandplan on the ARRL website.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

De Tom WA3KLR:

The new bandplan is essentially the ARRL's latest attempt to get their regulation by bandwidth agenda instituted by now going around the FCC to the IARU.

Besides curtailing AM on most HF bands, where AM would be allowed is rather tenuous due to a subtle technicality.

I don’t see how AM operation can comply with the 6 kHz. occupied bandwidth rule.  Even AM generated in rigs where the AM signal passes through a crystal filter will be wider than 6 kHz. occupied bandwidth (as measured with my IC-706).  I guess most of us see this rule as a sly attempt to end AM altogether in practice, by going over the heads of the naïve “rulemakers” who don’t appreciate technically the impracticality of the 6 kHz. BW rule.

- - - - - - - - - -

De Mack N4VGB:

IARU is just like the ARRL, no real legal authority. Now if the IARU brings this to the ITU and gets them to adopt it, big problem. Since the U.S. is a member nation of the ITU and their regulations pretty much automatically become U.S. regulations in most cases. Sumner is secretary of the whole IARU, not just region 2, could be a political 'end around' move on his part.

Mack

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Countries of Region 2

Anguilla | Antigua-Barbuda |  Argentina | Aruba | Bahamas | Barbados | Belize | Bermuda | Bolivia | Brazil | British Virgin Islands | Canada  Cayman Islands | Chile | Colombia | Costa Rica | Cuba | Dominica | Dominican Republic | Ecuador | El Salvador | Grenada | Guadeloupe  Guatemala | Guyana | Haiti | Honduras | Jamaica | Martinique | Mexico | Montserrat | Netherlands Antilles | Nicaragua | Panama  Paraguay | Peru | St. Kitts and Nevis | St. Lucia | St. Vincent and the Grenadines | Suriname | Trinidad and Tobago | Turks and Caicos  United States of America | Uruguay | Venezuela

And, here are the Officers and Directors for Region 2:

OFFICERS:

President:
Rod Stafford W6ROD
5155 Shadow Estates
San Jose, CA 95135 USA
Email:  w6rod@iaru.org
Phone::+1 408 238-4671

Vice-President:
Dario Jurado HP1DJ
P.O. Box 55-0812 Paitilla
Panama, Rep. of Panama
Email:hp1dj@sinfo.net
Phone:+507 221-3157
Cell Phone:+507 637-9326
Fax:+507 221-4685

Secretary:
Reinaldo Leandro YV5AMH
c/o Radio Club Venezolano
PO Box 2285
Caracas 1010-A, VENEZUELA
Email:leandror@bellsouth.net
Phone:+58 212 239-3192

Treasurer:
Noel Donawa 9Y4NED
98 Sapphire Drive
Diamond Vale, Trinidad
Email: 9y4ned@tstt.net.tt
Phone:868 637-4773
Fax:868 632-8255
Cell Phone:868 680-2004

DIRECTORS:

Area A:
Daniel Lamoureux VE2KA
2080 St. Jacques App 4
Montreal, QC H3J 2S1
CANADA
Email:  ve2ka@iaru.org
Phone: +1 514 939-6456

Area B:
Rod Stafford W6ROD
5155 Shadow Estates
San Jose, CA  95135
USA
Email:w6rod@arrl.org
Phone/Fax:+1 408 363-1360

Area C:
Pedro Rodriguez CO2RP
P.O. Box 6060
Havana 6, Cuba
Email:co2rp@jovenclub.cu
Phone:+53 7 730-2223

Area D:
Marco Tulio Gudiel TG9AGD
P.O. Box 115
Guatemala City, Guatemala
Email:gudiel@comtelsa.com
Phone:+502 2431-5914

Area E:
Noel Donawa 9Y4NED
98 Sapphire Drive
Diamond Vale, Trinidad
Email :9y4ned@tstt.net.tt

Phone:868 637-4773

Area F:
Gustavo de Faria Franco PT2ADM
SQS 210 Bl "E" apt 501
Brasilia DF
Cep 70273 050 Brazil
Email:pt2adm@pobox.com
Pt2adm@arrl.net
Phone:+55 61 443-8030
+55 61 443-1154
Work:+55 61 234-7456
Cell Phone:+55 61 7811-1121
Fax:+55 61 234-7456


Area G:
Reinaldo Szama LU2AH
Gorostiaga 2320 P.15 "A"
1426 Buenos Aires
Argentina
Email:lu2ah@szama.com
Phone:+54 11 4776-2503
Fax:+54 11 4613-3004

(29 January 2005)

- - - - - - - - - -
Biography of the President of the IARU Region 2:

Rod Stafford, W6ROD

Rod Stafford, W6ROD, is International Affairs Vice President of the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), the national association for Amateur Radio. The ARRL Board of Directors reelected him to his third term in January 2004. He is very involved with Amateur Radio issues within the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) Region 2 organization, and has held the position of Region 2 Secretary since 2001.

An Amateur Extra class licensee, Stafford first obtained his Amateur Radio license in the mid-70s, and held previous call signs WD6AKS and KB6ZV.

He is a former Section Manager for the Santa Clara Valley Section, and a former Pacific Division Director. He has held the position of Second Vice President, First Vice President, and then was President of the League from 1995 to 2000. Stafford served as a Director of IARU Region 2 (1998-2001), and has attended numerous IARU regional conferences and IARU Administrative Council meetings.

His interests in Amateur Radio extend to HF operation and VHF/UHF operation.

Stafford serves the League as a volunteer. He is a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California, currently sitting on a trial assignment hearing Felony and Misdemeanor jury trials. He has been on the bench since December 1990. Stafford is a graduate of San Diego State University and University of Santa Clara School of Law.

In addition to Amateur Radio, Stafford enjoys photography and golf. His wife Pat is licensed as N1PAT.

- - - - - -
IARU Region 2 Conference Completes Its Work in Brasilia:

from The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 38

Website: http://www.arrl.org/ on September 21, 2007

Add a comment about this article!

IARU Region 2 Conference Completes Its Work in Brasilia:

Completing a week that included lengthy committee meetings and a half-day tour of Brazil's capital city, the delegates to the 16th IARU Region 2 General Assembly in Brasilia met in Plenary assembly on Friday, September 14 to complete their work. Members of the ARRL's delegation included President Joel Harrison, W5ZN; Vice President Kay Craigie, N3KN, and husband Carter, N3AO; CEO David Sumner, K1ZZ; Southeastern Division Director Frank Butler, W4RH; Chief Technology Officer Paul Rinaldo, W4RI, and Technical Relations Specialist Jon Siverling, WB3ERA.

Committee A, which deals with administrative matters, was chaired by Norma Leiva, HR2NL, of Honduras; the ARRL's Siverling served as secretary and interpreter. This committee presented the first report of the Conference and made a number of recommendations for Conference action, all of which were adopted. They include:

The establishment of a Region 2 Relief Fund with an initial transfer of $5000 from the general reserve of Region 2; additional contributions will be solicited. The Fund will be administered by the Executive Committee and will be available solely to assist Region 2 Member-Societies whose club stations and buildings, including antenna systems, are damaged by natural disaster.

The Executive Committee will develop a conference call process for Region 2 that includes objectives, action plans, due dates and score cards in order to improve communication among the Member-Societies and the Executive Committee

An offer by Radio Club Argentino to be responsible for the Spanish translation of the IARU Region 2 electronic bulletin was accepted.

Terms of reference for the Amateur Radio in Education Project that was adopted by the 15th General Assembly in 2004 were revised slightly to simplify the grant application process and encourage applications.

The Conference recognized Wolf Baron, TI2BY, of San Jose, Costa Rica, for his outstanding service to Amateur Radio by conducting on-the-air training on Sunday mornings for more than five years.

Several recommendations from the Region 2 Working Group on Emergency Communications were adopted. These include establishing an Emergency Communications Committee that will be responsible to the Executive Committee for carrying out planning, training and the maintenance of equipment and personnel inventories for emergency assistance deployment.

The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008. The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive Committee.

The next report was from the Finance Committee, Committee D, chaired by Treasurer Noel Donawa, 9Y4NED, of Trinidad and Tobago. The Plenary accepted two recommendations from Committee D. The first is an effort to reach out to Member-Societies that have fallen behind in meeting their dues obligations to Region 2; they will be offered the opportunity to pay their back dues through 2006 at a 25 percent discount if they do so by January 15, 2008. The Plenary also directed the Executive Committee to study the existing dues structure, along with options and alternatives, and to report to the next General Assembly.

The Conference accepted the offer of the Club de Radio Aficionados de El Salvador (CRAS) to host the 17th General Assembly in 2010.

The Conference's last order of business was the election of officers and other Executive Committee members for the next three years. Rod Stafford, W6ROD, declined to stand for re-election as President but will remain a Director. Moving to the office of President is Secretary Reinaldo Leandro, YV5AMH, of Venezuela. Dario Jurado, HP1DJ, of Panama was re-elected Vice President, and Donawa was re-elected Treasurer and Director. Santoyo was newly elected as Secretary and joins the Executive Committee for the first time. The other Directors were re-elected: Daniel A. Lamoureux, VE2KA, of Canada; Pedro Rodriguez, CO2RP, of Cuba; Marco Tulio Gudiel, TG9AGD, of Guatemala; Gustavo de Faria Franco, PT2ADM, of Brazil, and Ron Szama, LU2AH, of Argentina. A provision of the Bylaws was amended to permit the Executive Committee to consist of 10 members rather than the customary nine.

The conferees expressed their deep appreciation to LABRE, host of the 16th General Assembly, for its outstanding hospitality. Forty delegates and observers representing 18 countries in the Americas -- 11 in person, seven via proxy -- attended the Conference.

Source:

The ARRL Letter Vol. 26, No. 38 September 21, 2000

- - - - - - - -
Please pass along.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 11, 2007, 09:06:25 PM
Interesting.  I just looked the IARU page for Resolutions and Policies:

http://www.iaru.org/ac-respol.html

The IARU Resolutions – goes up to 2004 only.
 
Latest resolution on the Resolution page is:
---
RESOLUTION 04-1
concerning the potential interference to radio services from BPL systems
 
The IARU Administrative Council, Port of Spain, October 2004
---
Page last modified: 02:02 PM, 29 Dec 2005 ET
Page author: k1zz@arrl.org
-------------------------------
The Page author is k1zz, hasn't been updated in almost 2 years.

It sure is nice of them to not be current. 

I'm sure it's just an accident - Dave's a busy guy.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KF1Z on October 11, 2007, 10:49:42 PM
Funny they have an AM calling frequency listed of 7.275mhz....
At 2700hz BW?

Clearly these folks are ONLY favoring contesters an DXers.....

Really sad.....


And, if I'm thinking straight.....

Didn't most older (older than 5 years) radios come with 2.8khz SSB filters?


That mean those would be "unacceptable"?



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 11, 2007, 11:16:10 PM
I just looked over the IARU Region 1 band plan which was effective January 1, 2006.

The widest bandwidth on HF below 29200 kHz. is 2700 Hz.  On the 10 MHz. band the widest bandwidth is 500 Hz.

On 10 meters above 29200, 6000 Hz BW is allowed.  This cuts down the legal use of +/- 5 kHz deviation NBFM there.  

After the frequency segment charts, the first note is this:

Preferred mode and usage Notes

"All modes" - CW, SSB and those modes listed as Centres of Activity, plus AM (Consideration should be given to adjacent channel users.)

Then, in Notes the first note is:

"Amplitude modulation (AM) may be used in the telephony sub-bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel user. (NRRL Davos 05)."
- - - - -
I don't know what "NRRL Davos 05" refers to.

It's rather poor and odd writing to list "all modes" segments along with 2700 Hz maximum bandwidth and then have this note after the chart; AM as an exception.  I guess this is to prevent other "6 kHz." modes. (Similar to RM-11306.)

I read in the ARRL report on the IARU 2 conference just held that "The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1".  But the region 1 plan allows AM on all HF bands it is currently allowed.

It's interesting to note that the AMer must give consideration to the adjacent users, but not the other way around, the way I read it.

The last note in the plan is:
"Preferred operating frequencies on each 10 kHz. from 29.210 to 29.290 MHz. included should be used.  A deviation of +/- 2.5 kHz being used with 2.5 kHz as maximum modulation frequency."
- - - - -

Maximum modulation frequency of 2.5 kHz.  Can you believe it?  Even the telephone companies allow more than this.

Applying Carson's Rule for FM bandwidth (2fm + 2dk) that is still 10 kHz BW, which is not 6000 Hertz BW.

10 kHz. NBFM channel spacings.

5 kHz deviation and 3 kHz modulation is 16 kHz. BW.  This is what the commercial and 2 meter NBFM is based on.

This all makes me wonder about the technical competence and possible language problems with this international union, the IARU.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 11, 2007, 11:32:35 PM
KF1Z said,

"And, if I'm thinking straight.....

Didn't most older (older than 5 years) radios come with 2.8khz SSB filters?

That mean those would be "unacceptable"?"


Although it's getting late and MY head is starting to feel like lead, you are very perceptive; you get the prize.

Yes, it's all about future rig sales, rig sales, rig sales, money, money, money. 

All present radios will become obsolete as they happen to be just over the new acceptable "occupied bandwidth" allowed.  The new Kenwoods, Icoms, and Yaesu's advertised in QST in the near future will state "meets the new occupied bandwidth standards".

T.O.M. must be spinning in his grave, at 50 Hertz, to meet EU standards of course.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 12, 2007, 10:24:11 AM
Well..... ifn any of their crap actually sees the light of day, the term "AM Gangsta" will have its place in reality. I, for one, will not stop using AM till they pry it from my cold dead fingers. This is America, for heaven's sake. (or is it quickly becoming AmeriKa, comrade)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KA1ZGC on October 12, 2007, 10:48:50 AM
Guys, you're getting all worked up over NOTHING.

Remember the ARRL's "mandatory voluntary bandplans" petition? How about the bandwidth petition? What do they have in common?

THEY ALL WENT DOWN IN FLAMES.

The FCC has absolutely no interest in adding further regulations to ham radio. They've said this over and over again, but something as stupid as an IARU bandplan comes along and everyone forgets that and goes all Chicken Little about it.

Put away your guns, guys (and put away your white flag, Mack). There's no fight here, and nothing for us to be upset about. It's just a bunch of tired old men trying to pretend they were ever relevant.

--Thom
Killer Agony One Zipper Got Caught


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 12, 2007, 11:37:28 AM
Quote
Guys, you're getting all worked up over NOTHING.

I disagree Thom.
Just like Man causing Global Warming...... what if it's true ??????
If we do nothing we all may wake up dead one day !!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KB2WIG on October 12, 2007, 02:32:56 PM
If Man causes global warming, Women will blame him.................... klc


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 12, 2007, 03:05:17 PM
Guys, you're getting all worked up over NOTHING.

...something as stupid as an IARU bandplan comes along and everyone forgets that and goes all Chicken Little about it.

Put away your guns, guys (and put away your white flag, Mack). There's no fight here, and nothing for us to be upset about. It's just a bunch of tired old men trying to pretend they were ever relevant.

But what's the purpose of the band plan if someone didn't intended for everyone to follow it?  Reportedly, it passed unanimously at the IARU meeting, and US and Canada each had a vote as part of Region II.

Sure, it is only a suggestion, but if no-one shows any concern it likely will continuously be shoved in our faces, as a conditioning exercise to get the US amateur community to accept regulation-by-bandwidth.  Also of specific concern is the call to limit AM to two narrow segments in 80/75m, with no operation or 160 or 40-12m.

Some readers may recall that sometimes in the 70's, in a Report and Order of some FCC docket (I would have to dig through my files for more specific information) but I do recall a paragraph which read, "It is highly recommended that full carrier double sideband be used only in cases of emergency." I don't recall if this was pre-Johnston or not, but the overwhelming response to Docket 20777 made the FCC aware that amateur interest in AM had not gone away.  I remember once hearing some slopbucket trying to break in to my AM QSO with "didn't you know that AM is illegal except for emergencies?"

A substantial response by the AM community over this issue will make our amateur radio "leaders" think twice before proposing further limitations on the mode.

Plus, I can hear it now.  You are on 160m AM or somewhere else outside the 80m segments, and you hear some weak slopbucket in the background under the carrier, foaming at the mouth and screaming "why don'tcha get that AM back where it belongs."


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 12, 2007, 05:29:27 PM
Just like Man causing Global Warming...... what if it's true ??????
If we do nothing we all may wake up dead one day !!

Even if we do "something", we will still wake up dead one day!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 12, 2007, 09:00:00 PM
Ah yes Pete, we will. But by means of our own choosing........ I hope.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 13, 2007, 09:06:39 AM
Here are 2 recent responses from the topic:
New band plan - bandwidth designated - IARU approv, New Band plan on QRZ.com:

De WQ8U:

The IARU has approved a new band plan based on signal bandwidth.  It becomes effective January 1, 2008.

Among other limiting changes, it limits traditional AM to only two small segments on 80 meters and above 10 meters.

This is similar but worse in several ways than the plan advocated by the ARRL that was soundly rejected by ARRL members and hams in general.  Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, the ARRL CEO is also an officer with the IARU.  The ARRL said it would revisit the failed approach - I guess this is their revisit.

While IARU designations are "voluntary" they are traditionally what has become the official designation.

See the bad news at:
http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF1_2008.pdf

Or Google "IARU Region 2" and look at the Sept 2007 headline.

73
Mac
WQ8U
Hillsborough, NC

- - - - - - - - -
De KQ6XA
Respectfully, the IARU Bandplan Committees have a difficult job. In this recent bandplan, I've noticed they are trying to give the appearance that they have moved to bandwidth-based bandplanning, but they still adhere to mode descriptions and categorization.

Sadly, they simply copied the IARU Region 1 bandplan, along with many of the poorly-planned parts of it. It is out of place in Region 2 (North America and South America Region). International normalization is good in some cases, but not when it happens in a negative or regressive direction. 

The use of 200Hz limit bandwidth is totally unrealistic for anything except PSK31... and if you notice, they did not apply 200Hz to the worldwide PSK31 window at 14070-14073 kHz! CW operators normally do not operate within 200Hz of each other, except for CW contests. This begs the question: What is 200Hz in there for?

The 500Hz bandwidth segments are misplaced and the demarcations are not in concert with actual use on the bands. Devoting large portions of traditional digital data spectrum to such narrow bandwidths ignores all the advancements in time-efficient fast digital methods that can be used in 2kHz or 3kHz bandwidths.

They copied Region 1's limit of 2700Hz bandwidth. It is rather unrealistic, considering that many amateur radio SSB voice transceivers have 2.8 to 3.1kHz filters. Oh, and did you notice the wacky "AM exception"?

The 80m, 40m, and 30m bands in the plan are vastly out of touch with the reality in Region 2. In fact, they are in direct contradiction to USA's FCC rules. They somehow missed the fact that USA operators are 95% or more of the operators in Region 2. Didn't any of the bandplanners notice the elephant in the room?

Perhaps they need input by more active digi operators over the next few years when they get around to making a new bandplan. It looks like they totally ignored the input they received over the past year. In the mean time, they missed the digitization trend on the air in ham radio, and the way that the bands are being used by operators on the ground.

By being out of touch with "ground truth", we can expect that large parts of the IARU Region 2 bandplan are going to be widely disregarded by operators in North America. In fact, they must be disregarded in some cases if operators follow their own country's ham regulations!

This is a tragedy, because this sort of "head in the clouds" bandplanning breeds overall contempt by the rank and file for bandplans.

The Region 2 bandplanners need to get together quickly by tele-meeting, and correct the glaring errors, before this document goes into effect, especially on 40 meters and 80 meters.

As usual, the various world bandplans, including the new IARU Region 2 bandplan are on the HFLINK.COM bandplans site:

Click here:  http://hflink.com/bandplans
 

Click here:  IARU REGION 2 - NEW BANDPLAN


73 Bonnie KQ6XA

Edited by KQ6XA on Oct. 13 2007,03:30

--------------
Bonnie KQ6XA
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We do need to respond to this IARU action, and loudly. 

You must provide your feedback to "your IARU member society" which in our case is unfortunately the ARRL, and to our IARU U.S. region director which happens to be the IARU Region 2 president, Rod Stafford.

Complaints to the ITU may be in order also.

Remember, there are several ITU conferences coming up VERY soon.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: n3mir on October 13, 2007, 12:16:10 PM
This plan is clearly aimed at freak and contest seeks.
you know the people that can only say 5 9 qrzed contest.
these ARRL types only have slide banders interest in mind.
these guys are sounding more like the federal goverment
every day.

what a shame  and they want my money for qst(not)

dave


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 13, 2007, 12:55:04 PM
New band plan - bandwidth designated - IARU approv, New Band plan on QRZ.com:

De WQ8U:

The IARU has approved a new band plan based on signal bandwidth.  It becomes effective January 1, 2008.

Among other limiting changes, it limits traditional AM to only two small segments on 80 meters and above 10 meters.

Is there nontraditional AM out there somewhere ???

Actually in this revised band plan, all AM is still allowed wherever "all modes" are still designated which is most of the current amateur bands but with a limitation of only 2700 Hz. My 756 PRO II doesn't comply but my Central Electronics 100V does. I can just modulate either the upper or lower sideband with full carrier. Ah, now the stress has gone away. Technology is good.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 13, 2007, 03:03:30 PM
Yes it's worth getting your concerns on record at the ARRL, but don't count on the club in Newington to actually be receptive to complaints about the IARU Region 2 band plan they have pushed into the international arena.

Actually, where you note :

Quote
Complaints to the ITU may be in order also.

Remember, there are several ITU conferences coming up VERY soon.

The guy in charge of the ITU just got his radio hobbyist license.
Might be nice to congratulate him, invite him to join us some time on AM, and say, oh by the way, you may not have heard, but there's this misguided plan floating up from Region 2.


Dr Hamadoun Toure, Secretary General of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU), received his Amateur Radio license
October 8. Toure, who holds the call sign HB9EHT, is from Mali. He has a
Master's Degree in electrical engineering from the Technical Institute
of Electronics and Telecommunications of Leningrad and a PhD from the
University of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics of Moscow.

Source: ARRL club newsletter




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 13, 2007, 03:18:19 PM
Actually in this revised band plan, all AM is still allowed wherever "all modes" are still designated which is most of the current amateur bands but with a limitation of only 2700 Hz. My 756 PRO II doesn't comply but my Central Electronics 100V does. I can just modulate either the upper or lower sideband with full carrier.

One sideband plus carrier is NOT the same thing as what we call AM.  It is merely SSB with poor carrier suppression.  It is readable on an AM detector only if the percentage of modulation is kept low, below 20 or 30%.  At higher percentages of modulation, re-inserted carrier is required for relatively distortion-free reception, just as in the case of regular SSB.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 13, 2007, 03:29:57 PM
Interestingly, news about this bandplan has been widely circulated on the internet for over a week now.  There still has been nothing mentioned about it in the ARRL Letter (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/07/1012/).


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 13, 2007, 03:51:59 PM
Yes it was mentioned in an article in the ARRL Letter Number 38 September 21, 2007 newsletter:

http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/07/0921/

I pasted a copy of the article from that newsletter in one of my previous postings on the prior page.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 13, 2007, 04:06:13 PM
An excerpt from the ARRL-written article on the *Braziliian Conference held in September:

"The Plenary adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008. The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive Committee."

- - - -  -

I guess "regional differences" refers to the U.S.-based AM-hating ARRL.

Gee, what can I do with a Region 2 Diploma?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 13, 2007, 04:57:10 PM
Actually in this revised band plan, all AM is still allowed wherever "all modes" are still designated which is most of the current amateur bands but with a limitation of only 2700 Hz. My 756 PRO II doesn't comply but my Central Electronics 100V does. I can just modulate either the upper or lower sideband with full carrier.

One sideband plus carrier is NOT the same thing as what we call AM.  It is merely SSB with poor carrier suppression.  It is readable on an AM detector only if the percentage of modulation is kept low, below 20 or 30%.  At higher percentages of modulation, re-inserted carrier is required for relatively distortion-free reception, just as in the case of regular SSB.

You need to think outside the AM standard type box. Actually you can "re-insert" carrier by just unbalancing the balanced modulator. With many phasing rigs, SB-10/Apache or SB/DX100B, and even some of the Johnson SSB rigs, that's easy to do from the front panel. And to many on the receiving end, they don't sound that bad. When I operate 20 M AM, I generally just use 1 sideband and full carrier. No one on the other end has yet to comment about something weird with my AM signal.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 13, 2007, 07:34:33 PM
Back on August 08, 2007, Pete posted links to the ARRL's July board minutes and the band planning committee minutes. 

In the band planning committee minutes it mentions that the ARRL was withdrawing their RM-11306 petition.  The minutes are also written as presuming the petition was going to be enacted.

I attach that pdf file for reading in retrospect.  It does not elude to the events of the September 2007 IARU conference.  When I went to save the pdf a few moments ago, I found that I had already saved it back in August when Pete posted the existence of the minutes (thanks Pete).  This means I read the minutes at the time and I sensed no danger.

Pete, you don’t seem fazed about this potential change essentially eliminating AM as we know it.  Personally, I don't want to work the non-traditional AM the ARRL has cooked up for us, again without our input.  I don't want to work no AM either, I prefer the traditional AM.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 13, 2007, 08:38:19 PM
You need to think outside the AM standard type box. Actually you can "re-insert" carrier by just unbalancing the balanced modulator. With many phasing rigs, SB-10/Apache or SB/DX100B, and even some of the Johnson SSB rigs, that's easy to do from the front panel. And to many on the receiving end, they don't sound that bad. When I operate 20 M AM, I generally just use 1 sideband and full carrier. No one on the other end has yet to comment about something weird with my AM signal.

I'm not interesting in operating "outside the AM standard type box". I am perfectly happy with high level plate modulated AM using broadcast transmitter components.  I  sometimes have people answer my CQ's using SSB + carrier, and on my receiver the audio generally sucks.  To me,  running that crap would defeat the whole purpose of AM.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 13, 2007, 09:04:47 PM
Quote
with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive Committee."


Those interested can supply them with some details to work out.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 13, 2007, 09:23:53 PM
I'm not interesting in operating "outside the AM standard type box". I am perfectly happy with high level plate modulated AM using broadcast transmitter components.  I  sometimes have people answer my CQ's using SSB + carrier, and on my receiver the audio generally sucks.  To me,  running that crap would defeat the whole purpose of AM.

That's why amateur radio is great. We have lots of variety to communicate from point A to point B.

And, in the end, it's all about the ears. :)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 13, 2007, 09:49:26 PM
Pete, you don’t seem fazed about this potential change essentially eliminating AM as we know it.  Personally, I don't want to work the non-traditional AM the ARRL has cooked up for us, again without our input.  I don't want to work no AM either, I prefer the traditional AM.

I just follow the current rules and regulations on the books set forth by our FCC. If and when a proposal for changing the rules is submitted to the FCC, and if they assign an RM number to it, we then have a process in place within the FCC to make all our issues and concerns known to them in a formal manner. Venting is sometimes good, but we already know the current ARRL band plan is voluntary, and the ARRL has already stated in an e-mail (posted on the amradio reflector) that the IARU band plan is voluntary. The FCC is our government agency dictating our amateur rules. As I see it, complying with the voluntary revised Region 2 band plan, the general U. S. amateur radio population gains nothing and neither does the FCC. I would be hard to believe that any of these Region 2 countries have any real clout with the FCC, and we have already seen over the last few years how often the ARRL has been beaten down by the FCC.

And you also said: "non-traditional AM the ARRL has cooked up for us"
The assumption, that the U. S. representative (ARRL) was able to sway the committee members who actually modeled this revised plan like the Region 1 band plan in which the ARRL has no vote, and then swayed the entire IARU to approve the plan, is at this time without any merit.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W1VD on October 14, 2007, 08:53:58 AM
Relying on the FCC as AM's first and last line of defense doesn't seem prudent. A political change starting next year could, over time, see the thinking of the FCC forcibly changed to a 'one world view'. Those familiar with the workings of the ARRL, IARU and ITU should suggest a coherent course of action we can take...so we can begin to derail this nonsense now.     


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 14, 2007, 09:26:29 AM
Well Pete, we don't know for a fact who actually instituted the heavy curtailing of AM in the IARU band plan, yet.  I presume that the ARRL is directly involved with the change, because in their newsletter there is no such text as "well we were broadsided at the conference by a group of countries who appear to have conspired against AM and the U.S.  We did vote against the band plan as written but were out-voted by our brothers in the Americas." No.

Surely the ARRL must know that this change will be very unpopular.  But there was no attempt to defend themselves about this in the newsletter.

By the way, my November QST came Friday.  So far no mention, probably too late of course for the Nov. issue.  I can't want for the December issue to read Dave's editorial, "It Seems to ME" I mean "It Seems to US" extolling the wonderful things that were accomplished at the IARU Region 2 *Braziliian conference.

Jay, yes the timing of the federal election appears unfortunate to this situation.  With the unpopularity of the war in Iraq, conventional wisdom presumes that the White House will change parties and so the man (or woman) at the top of the FCC will change January 2009.

This change if it becomes the law for the US hams is a loss that may not ever get undone. 

I brought this up a year ago – the need for a regime change in the ARRL.  I said at the time that Dave Sumner has been in there a long, long time, too long.  It should be obvious by now Pete.  More on this later.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 14, 2007, 12:49:42 PM
I brought this up a year ago – the need for a regime change in the ARRL.  I said at the time that Dave Sumner has been in there a long, long time, too long. 

We have already seen another example of the kind of damage that can be caused when one person remains in charge for way too long.

John Johnston of the FCC retired in 1998 after serving for 26 years with the Commission, carrying out regulatory duties with the Office of Engineering and with the series of bureaus administering the private radio services (which includes amateur radio). Positions held included Deputy Chief, Spectrum Management Task Force, and Chief, Amateur and Citizens Division, later to be known as the Private Radio Bureau.  Beginning with Docket 20777 in 1976, and culminating in the AM power fiasco in 1990, many of us recall those years in which the FCC released what seemed to be a never  ending series of ill-conceived, poorly thought-out dockets that "happened" to contain language proposing to in some way restrict or curtail AM operation.

Quote
Emissions Docket. FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 20777, that would delete entirely all references to specific emission types, such as Al, A5, etc. in the Amateur Radio rules. FCC proposes to replace the present provisions with limitations on the allowed bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in certain portions of the amateur bands. Four categories of permissible bandwidth are proposed. These are: less than 350 Hz; less than 3.5 kHz; less than 35 kHz, and 35 kHz or more. CW and RTTY emissions would fall in the less than 350 Hz sub-bands. SSB, FAX and conventional SSTV would be allowed in the 3.5 kHz or less sub-bands, and conventional AM and NBFM would fall into the 35 kHz or less category. The proposed table of authorized bandwidths would not allow bandwidths of greater than 3.5 kHz below the 28 MHz amateur band, thereby prohibiting use of double-sideband AM below 10 meters, Bandwidths of 35 kHz or greater would only be allowed on amateur  bands above 1215 MHz, thus eliminating fast-scan TV from the 420-450 MHz band. There are many other implications, both good and bad, to this proposal. Full text will appear in July QST.  Comments are due to FCC by June 23; ARRL has requested an extension of this due date to August 4.

From Jet Propulsion Laboratory Amateur Radio Club Bulletin (http://www.jplrecclubs.caltech.edu/radio/calling/1976/jun/jun76.html), June 1976


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 14, 2007, 02:29:58 PM

Surely the ARRL must know that this change will be very unpopular.  But there was no attempt to defend themselves about this in the newsletter.

By the way, my November QST came Friday.  So far no mention, probably too late of course for the Nov. issue.  I can't want for the December issue to read Dave's editorial, "It Seems to ME" I mean "It Seems to US" extolling the wonderful things that were accomplished at the IARU Region 2 Colombian conference.

I brought this up a year ago – the need for a regime change in the ARRL.  I said at the time that Dave Sumner has been in there a long, long time, too long.  It should be obvious by now Pete.  More on this later.

I suspect that since the Region 2 Executive Committee was still "working out some issues" in this revised band plan, the ARRL is holding back giving out info that may be incorrect. Whether we see an announcement in December or January from the ARRL, your guess is as good as mine.

As far as regime change, it's a simple process. Barring Sumner deciding to step down from his positions or retiring, all you have to do is convenience at least 8 of the Board of Directors not to re-elect Sumner to his positions and have an alternate candidate that is "more" suitable. But, you need to hurry; Sumner comes up for re-election to his positions at the January 2008 Board of Directors meeting.

Brief ARRL bio on Dave:
Active from the first as an ARRL volunteer, he joined the Headquarters staff in 1968 for the summer, became a part of the permanent staff in 1972, and was named Assistant General Manager four years later. He was named Secretary and General Manager in 1982, with a change in title to Executive Vice President in 1985 and the additional title of Chief Executive Officer in 2001.
Complete bio:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/pio/bios/officials/k1zz.html (http://www.remote.arrl.org/pio/bios/officials/k1zz.html)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 14, 2007, 02:30:15 PM
Thanks Don for posting that reminder.

Curiously, Johnny Johnston is now the national head of the Quarter Century Wireless Association. He responded favorably to an overture requesting that their national newsletter publish an article on "today's AM." That article will eventually be written and submitted for their group's consideration. You already are aware that there is an AM-Vintage Chapter of the QCWA, so our presence is already established.

With the IARU Region 2 proposal constraining bandwidth to 2.7Kc, perhaps it would be worth someone's trouble to provide a heads-up to the older demographic that makes up the membership of QCWA, warning them that much of the older SSB gear would not be in compliance with this voluntary band plan.

This could be combined with a suggestion they write to the IARU Executive Committee, as a group in a formal manner, or as individuals who support QCWA, and urge the IARU to revise its plan before it is implemented in January.

The FCC, with Johnston still at the helm, was convinced by 1977 that licensees did not want to substitute a bandwidth-based segregation of modes and activities for the longstanding, successful system of coordination we continue to have today.

That's why the ARRL's threatened bandwidth scheme was doomed from the start, and why it too, was ultimately defeated just as the FCC's proposal had been spurned 30 years ago.

(http://wa3vjb.amham.com/pics/who.bmp)

I didn't find any comments from Pete CWA and others who've been vocal on here, back during the 20777 proceeding nor the more recent Petition from the ARRL. Let's hope there is participation among concerned licensees to make it known the IARU plan is not acceptable as a voluntary standard nor as a regulatory device.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 14, 2007, 08:27:06 PM
I didn't find any comments from Pete CWA and others who've been vocal on here, back during the 20777 proceeding nor the more recent Petition from the ARRL. Let's hope there is participation among concerned licensees to make it known the IARU plan is not acceptable as a voluntary standard nor as a regulatory device.

Actually back during 20777, I really didn't give a hoot to what might be happening on or to the HF bands. The majority of all my amateur radio energies were focused on VHF and UHF type activities.The only time I can remember getting on 75 during that time frame was during Field Day.

As far as RM-11306 - My comments, four pages, were filed with the FCC February 3, 2006. Unless you're talking about some other petition ???
And I filed comments on the fictional RM-11305 too :)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 14, 2007, 08:29:54 PM
I filed comments on both RM-11305 and -11306.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 14, 2007, 09:27:57 PM
I had a nice conversation just now with one of the area directors within Region 2. I said that my chief concern is the apparent lack of consideration given to AM, and I raised no other points.

Key quotes that he gave me in response:
"There seems to be a movement to have us notice the problem."

"There definitely will be a revision."

"We will first start to discuss it at the Region 2 level."


And perhaps most gratifying:

"We are not there to impose anything. We're working for you. Tell us."

Which I now shall do via email as he requested.


On past filings  --

Apologies Pete.
I looked you up by your last name and spelled it wrong.

Tom, of course.

I'm puzzled by those who have NOT invested some of their time, and they know who they are.

The point I am trying to make is that writing on here is good to share thoughts and for getting folks stirred up, but the important part is to then communicate to the people pushing this crap on us.

I hope folks can find the time to send something to both the IARU and the ARRL stating point of view. If you feel like cc'ing that may help others put their thoughts together too.

A few years ago I went to the archives at a government agency and actually looked up the Comments filed throughout the Docket 20777 proceeding.

There were many many familiar calls and names in there, and each of the filings in those days consisted of one original hardcopy plus copies for each Commissioner, all mailed or hand-carried to 1919 M St. NW.

It is a wonderful upgrade to be able to file electronically on the FCC's website. Although it is not a regulatory body, it is too bad the IARU does not have a similar system to poll and collect comments from its constituents.

So, except for direct emails when an IARU actually lists one, it's back to the printed page, an envelope and a stamp.

Please take the time.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 15, 2007, 12:55:38 PM
With the League performing the way it is, it appears that forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The league is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial, not beholding to advertising clients.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 15, 2007, 03:32:25 PM
I have always resisted the idea of trying to come up with a rival group to the ARRL.

NO one could have the historic stature nor the publishing revenue it takes to subsidize subscriber services as the League continues to do.

That said, the group now running the place in Newington has overstayed its welcome. It is time for the Board of Directors to show some spine and remove those people from selected administrative positions.

Sumner, Rinaldo are good places to start.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on October 15, 2007, 03:42:30 PM
Tom said:
Quote
With the League performing the way it is, it appears that forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.

I've been advocating that idea for some time. I lack the organizational skills required for such a task. Have said that, I would assist in the birth of a new organization.

Paul said:
Quote
That said, the group now running the place in Newington has overstayed its welcome. It is time for the Board of Directors to show some spine and remove those people from selected administrative positions.

Sumner, Rinaldo are good places to start.

As I stated over on the AM reflector yesterday, I voted with my feet a number of years ago. Its tragic that the way it is right now, to have any say whatsoever in our hobby, you have to be long to an organization like the (be)League(d) :'(


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 15, 2007, 03:44:12 PM
The 2.7Kc bandwidth specification in the IARU Band
Plan for Region 2 came from ARRL Chief Technology
Lobbyist Paul Rinaldo at the committee deliberations
in Brazil, according to two IARU officials with
knowledge of the proceedings.

"That was an ARRL suggestion," one of these officials
told me in response to a question about where the
number came from. "They were worried that some people
were using it quite wider."

This person concluded the point by saying "It was Paul
Rinaldo who suggested."

So, you can take it from there.
Sumner is not in today, and Rinaldo has his answering
machine turned on.

When you reach either of them, please ask them to
explain their thinking.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wa2dtw on October 15, 2007, 03:48:19 PM
What about SPAR??


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 15, 2007, 06:06:48 PM
"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W1UJR on October 15, 2007, 06:35:28 PM
Do we need a new club, or simply form a group of dissenters and former member of the ARRL?
Why not take your League dues and throw your support behind something which is currently established.

You already have this wonderful and storied organization - Radio Club of America
www.radioclubofamerica.org/history.php
(http://www.radioclubofamerica.org/img/rca-header-square.gif)

And of course good folks at the Antique Wireless Association (AWA).
www.antiquewireless.org/index.htm
(http://www.antiquewireless.org/images/awabanr2.jpg)

When it comes down to it, I joined as a Life Member of the AWA this year, rather than the ARRL, feeling that the group better represented my interests. I'm not quite ready to give up on the League, but it sure sounds like the leadership has some serious explaining to do.
A direct answer, in written form, from Mr. Sumner & Co. would really go a long way toward getting this out in the open.

Paul, you're certainly got the talent to write a informed and eloquent rebuttal, and then inquire of Sumner.
Why not invite him here to explain what is going on?


73 Bruce W1UJR


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 15, 2007, 09:13:34 PM
"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/ (http://www.usarollersports.org/)

(http://usarollersports.org/pages/images/TeamDance.jpg)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KF1Z on October 15, 2007, 10:06:39 PM
"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/ (http://www.usarollersports.org/)

(http://usarollersports.org/pages/images/TeamDance.jpg)

so?.....
lots of things with the same initials..... never stopped anyone before.....

NEARFEST, for example, is quite a famous music gathering.... has been for years....





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 15, 2007, 10:23:34 PM
Interestingly, almost 10 years ago, the League attempted to get the FCC to enforce compliance with voluntary band plans.  Apparently, the FCC didn't go along with the idea, as nothing more was heard about it.

Quote
The ARRL also will ask the FCC for a declaratory ruling to put teeth
into the voluntary band plan concept. The League wants the FCC to
affirm that any operation that conflicts with established, voluntary
band plans and causes interference or adversely affects those
operating in accordance with applicable band plans ''is not good
amateur practice'' and would be considered a rules violation.

Scroll down to the 5th paragraph.

http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/1998-arlb008.html


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 15, 2007, 11:13:06 PM
"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/ (http://www.usarollersports.org/)

(http://usarollersports.org/pages/images/TeamDance.jpg)

so?.....
lots of things with the same initials..... never stopped anyone before.....

NEARFEST, for example, is quite a famous music gathering.... has been for years....


USARS trademark Reg. # 2749579 Status Active

NEARFEST name is not registered as a "trademark" or "mark" for anything


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KF1Z on October 16, 2007, 07:14:51 AM
"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/ (http://www.usarollersports.org/)



so?.....
lots of things with the same initials..... never stopped anyone before.....

NEARFEST, for example, is quite a famous music gathering.... has been for years....


USARS trademark Reg. # 2749579 Status Active

NEARFEST name is not registered as a "trademark" or "mark" for anything


yes pete... but the name mentioned was  u.s.a.r.s.      not the same as usars for trademark purposes........

but whatever...... hardly the point of the topic.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 16, 2007, 07:38:37 AM
Quote
The ARRL also will ask the FCC for a declaratory ruling to put teeth
into the voluntary band plan concept.

Hmmmmm ....... making non-compliance to a Voluntary bandplan a rules violation ????

Isn't that oxyMORONic ??


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 16, 2007, 07:47:10 AM
Oh well, if necessary we can do something a little different.  I must have spent 10 seconds on the name while standing at the kitchen counter yesterday afternoon.  I sure do like the ring of sovereignty though.

A ham friend sent my 5 page e-mail on the IARU band plan on to Wayne Green.  Here is Wayne’s response:

"I haven't been paying much attention. It's about time to end AM anyway.
I liked the country list -- I've visited 33 of them so far -- plus
Navassa (twice).

Wayne".
- - - -

I've never been to Brazil.  The closest I've gotten to it is Cape Cod.

I will be starting to work on my letter to the IARU today.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 16, 2007, 09:27:00 AM
A ham friend sent my 5 page e-mail on the IARU band plan on to Wayne Green.  Here is Wayne’s response:

"I haven't been paying much attention. It's about time to end AM anyway.
I liked the country list -- I've visited 33 of them so far -- plus
Navassa (twice).

Wayne".

I think he's pretty much out of the loop these days.  That was becoming obvious the last few years he published 73

He has had that same attitude regarding AM for at least the past 40 years.  As I recall, sometime in the 60's he submitted one of the many petitions the FCC has received over the years, requesting to delete AM from the ham bands.

OTOH he used to say that if hams had converted over to DSB suppressed carrier, combined with the Costas synchronous detector, it would have conserved more spectrum space than SSB.

Contacting him on this issue was a waste of time.  It would do about as much good as forwarding a copy of that e-mail to Richard Nixon or Britney Spears. 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 16, 2007, 01:04:55 PM
but whatever...... hardly the point of the topic.

Ya, like a lot of things


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed Nesselroad on October 16, 2007, 04:17:32 PM
Curiously absent from this discussion -- now on to 4 pages -- is any mention of the remote possibility that some of the continuing anti-AM regulatory rubbish might result from blissful disregard of AM power and bandwidth maxima by many operators.  Terms like strap and tall ships hint at the pride of a scofflaw.  Does the AM community have any responsibility for the desire of non-AMers to push us off into a tiny corner? 

Are there meaningful compromises or new ideas we might propose to bridge the divide?

Or is the reactionary posture as fundamental as, "Isn't it funny, isn't it true, the people you don't like don't like you?"

There are more of them than there are of us.  And the ratio changes more in their favor every day.  Surely, with all the intelligence present in the AM community, there's something more we can do than rant.   


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W9GT on October 16, 2007, 05:12:23 PM
Believe it or not Ed,  It is quite possible to "strap" or have a "tall ship" signal on AM and operate within legal limitations.  I would venture to say that most of us do operate legally!  Those who don't will have to worry about their own house.  Don't lump us all into that category!!  Likewise, do not assume that it takes illegal operation to have a commanding signal on the band. 

73,  Jack, W9GT


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KC1XF on October 16, 2007, 06:54:26 PM
Mack,

This Swamp Yankee see's the same thing it's all about the MONEY. Equipment Manufacturers, big advertisers in our ARRL rag, yep it's all about the money.

My feelings are existing MODES should not be interfered with, if they want new one's go ahead and add them. Let us choose to use them if we like.

I don't push anyone to use CW, AM, SSB, Digital or anything, I like AM and CW, I don't have any problem finding someone to converse with. This is a HOBBY and the ARRL, Equipment Manufacturers, and Lobbyist ought to leave the POLITICS out of the equation. They would like to know what the masses enjoy, but unfortunately they don't have a clue.

Whoever thought gear built 50 60 years ago sounds so good today. Alot of TLC and maintenance, technical know how and a love goes into each one.

73,

Fred


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WQ9E on October 16, 2007, 08:24:47 PM
Unfortunately there are not enough of us to make a real difference economically, if there were the simple answer would be a well publicized boycott of any manufacturer who continues to advertise in QST which of course wouldn't do any harm to CQ magazine either.  It is a shame what happened to the proud old ARRL and I am not that old an old timer having been first licensed in '74 at the age of 14.  I let my ARRL membership lapse a few years ago and then rejoined with a multi-year subscription and a contribution because of the good work Ed Hare had done in the BPL arena.  However, when my membership lapses this time it will be the last.  If someone were looking for a good idea of how to focus a magazine on newcomers with the intent of socializing newcomers into the "fraternity" and providing a good basis for technical learning the old Ham Radio Horizons provides a great example.  Since I aspire neither to be a "wacker" or adopt the CB mentality of "putting more fire in the wire" the new look of ARRL/QST is not for me.  Yes, it has been a rough day but living in the state of IL there is enough chicanery in our state government to keep me amused without any help from the diamond terrace group.

Rodger WQ9E


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 16, 2007, 09:57:36 PM
Quote
Are there meaningful compromises or new ideas we might propose to bridge the divide?
Actually, Ed, you need to revise your perception of the state of affairs, because you're sadly out of date.

The bridge that you envision took place starting about 20 years ago, when AM began to be seen and pursued as a vintage or nostalgic endeavour. By 15 years ago, the mode and activity were increasingly well-regarded by the overall amateur population. In the past ten years, there was very seldom any of the old poison thrown around as the elders heard during the era when SSB was struggling for acceptance.

These days, it's bonafide and unquestionable that AM is one of the many enjoyable facets of the hobby. You can pick any such facet and find operators you would judge poorly.*

AMers need no defense because of the mode used.  If you find their behavior questionable, that's a social problem. If you find technical shortcomings, it is probably actionable under existing FCC regulations.

It is not "curious" that no one has addressed your perceived problem (now into 5 pages), because you're one of the few who allow themselves to be put on the defensive, or lack the confidence to consider AM on an equal basis with any other mode in the hobby.

*I happen to think contestors, on the face of it, have a presumption of being rude during an event, and an illegitimate feeling of being entitled to the entire band in order to behave that way.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 17, 2007, 09:37:36 PM
Why not just get on the air and operate rather than throw stones? But since we're asking questions, I have a few.

What is/are the source(s) for the statement "blissful disregard of AM power and bandwidth maxima by many operators." Was this a poll or some other data gathering exercise?
How many is "many?"
What are the bandwidth limits to which you refer (hint, cite Part 97)?
What is the power level implied (or at least inferred by you) by the term "strap"?
What is the power level implied (or at least inferred by you) by the phrase "tall ship"?

Rant indeed.



Curiously absent from this discussion -- now on to 4 pages -- is any mention of the remote possibility that some of the continuing anti-AM regulatory rubbish might result from blissful disregard of AM power and bandwidth maxima by many operators.  Terms like strap and tall ships hint at the pride of a scofflaw.  Does the AM community have any responsibility for the desire of non-AMers to push us off into a tiny corner? 

Are there meaningful compromises or new ideas we might propose to bridge the divide?

Or is the reactionary posture as fundamental as, "Isn't it funny, isn't it true, the people you don't like don't like you?"

There are more of them than there are of us.  And the ratio changes more in their favor every day.  Surely, with all the intelligence present in the AM community, there's something more we can do than rant.  


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WQ9E on October 17, 2007, 10:41:13 PM
Realistically, how many people running near the legal limit on sideband can measure their peak output with any degree of accuracy?  Even the vaunted Bird meters are specified at around 5% accuracy (when they are brand new, not beat up as they are by the time they are purchased by most hams) as I recall and this is for steady state and not PEP and any of the electronic computing circuits are making assumptions about the waveform with their reported peak readings.  One way to ascertain the true peak output would be to first use a meter with calibration traceable to a known standard at the frequency AND power output of interest and use this along with a scope (preferably storage or variable persistence) to calibrate the scope display to a specified level at 1500 watts "carrier" and then use the scope display to determine the actual peak output.  How many stations actually do this?  I think the answer is that would be a null data set.

I do have one "large" amplifier I built several years ago which certainly could exceed the legal limit if you wanted to drive it like it was on the CB band but I overbuilt it simply so it would stand up to contest and/or high level AM usage without difficulty.  It uses 3 parallel 4CX800 tubes in grid driven AB-1 and the power supply is built around a Dahl 2.5KW CCS rated transformer with 56 uf of filter provided by several oil filled caps in parallel.  I can also safely say that the only time it was run at over the legal limit was into 4 Heathkit Cantennas in series/parallel during testing.  With good antennas I have never felt the need for more power and I load it to 2300 watts INPUT using accurately calibrated plate current and voltage meters which are far more accurate than trying to measure output and I feel pretty sure that I am not achieving more than 65% efficiency nor exceeding the legal limit.  Depending on which meter and what band I am on I have seen output ranging from 1100 watts to 1800 watts ACCORDING to the watt meter.  One of the more novel metering approaches I recall seeing was someone used 1 100 watt bulb judged to be running at exactly 100 watts from a metered AC source, a second bulb was driven by the transmitter and an optical probe was used to compare the brightness of the two.  Perhaps we need some 1,500 watt fast response light bulbs.

The only piece of true AM gear that I have which could exceed the current legal limit is my Johnson Desk KW and I run it with reduced drive and loading so that the actual plate input to the final is 500 watts and with expected efficiency of 70 to 75% it is running at about the current legal limit.  When rebuilding the Desk KW I did correct the meter shunt for the cathode current meter and I added a separate external meter for screen current so I can accurately calculate the actual plate input level.  I will admit being tempted to load the Desk KW up as it was designed but I have yet to run into the occasion where 3 db would actually make a difference (well maybe trying to break the "pileup" on the first Wednesday AM night) and I have the satisfaction of staying legal and increasing the longevity of the finals.  Yes, I know there is some impedance mismatch running at this level however the 810 modulators have plenty of reserve since the required audio amount is also reduced.

Just my thoughts from a rule follower.  It must be my German heritage because as a Novice back in '74 I dutifully logged every CQ call....

Rodger WQ9E
 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 17, 2007, 10:51:07 PM
And my guess is that the vast majority of hams and AMers are in the same boat as you Rodger. The idea that AMers are at fault for other messing with us because many run illegal power is absurd. Just because someone is loud on your receiver does not mean they are running illegal power. Do the math. For someone to be 10 dB louder than the legal limit means they would need to be running 15 kW.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 18, 2007, 07:56:16 AM
Quote
Just because someone is loud on your receiver does not mean they are running illegal power.

Exactly Steve. Just witness Tron smokin' the wires on his phased array with a barefoot Ranger. Many nites that setup is 9+40 here in the midwest.

Then there's 54 watt Fred with his loop antenna. Always a strapping signal here.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 18, 2007, 09:50:23 AM
I think hams paid a lot more attention to the 1 kw DC input limit than they do to the p.e.p. bullshit.  I'd say the majority of to-days hams don't have a clue what p.e.p. is, let alone how to accurately measure it.  Reminds me of kids in class insisting on an obviously wrong answer to a maths problem because "that's what the calculator says".  Unless you are working into a 50-ohm non-reactive  load, a wattmeter won't read accurately.  Most wattmeters are basically rf voltmeters, calibrated in watts when working into a known purely resistive load.

With the new power limits, the FCC admitted as much, and deleted from the  rules the old requirement that amateurs possess accurate means for measuring their power.  In the R&O they went on to state something to the effect that hams can determine their power output by "means other than accurate measurement", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I run my final at about 700 watts DC input.  By the time you take into account the efficiency of the PA, the losses in the tank circuit, and the loss in the feedline out to the tower, then the losses in the remote antenna tuner, the carrier output to the antenna is about right, according to the rf ammeter and the table of antenna impedance measurements I recorded with the General Radio bridge when I first built the antenna system.  The only thing I worry about with modulation is keeping the audio clean and within the limits of overmodulation in the negative direction and flat-topping in the positive direction.  I have about zilch concern over where an occasional high amplitude peak may reach, because the vast majority of my voice peaks are far below that, even with the broadcast compressor and peak limiter in line.  To achieve more with analogue equipment would require driving the audio into clipping and generating a mushy, crappy sounding signal.

To make any real noticeable difference at the receiving end, you would need to run 3 kw or more of carrier power on AM.  OTOH I routinely hear slopbucketeers bragging about their "two-holers" and "three-holers" pushing their "gauge" all the way to the right, with their trashy sounding signal,  consisting of at least 50% blower noise.

If I had a Johnson KW or Collins KW-1, I would probably just run it in the normal fashion as recommend by the factory.  Many hams have an overly-optimistic notion about their output power.  I recall in one of their restructuring proceedings back in the 70's, even the FCC estimated that a typical ham transmitter delivers to the antenna a total efficiency of 50% of the DC input at best.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KA1ZGC on October 18, 2007, 11:18:00 AM
I just don't understand why the perception of "the IARU is out to get us", any more than I understand why the assumption that this bandplan will be cast into regulation when no other IARU (or anyone else's) bandplan in history ever was.

Nobody has been able to directly answer that question. All I get in response is "well, yeah... but what if they do it anyway?".

This, from the very same people that piss and moan about the dumbing down of ham radio. Well, the "dumbing down" is the result of DE-regulation. You'd have to be an idiot not to notice that the FCC is DE-regulating everything in sight.

The FCC band expansion is a sign of the upcoming regulatory trend, not the IARU bandplan. For the FCC to codify any part of the IARU bandplan would be for the FCC to add regulations that only they can enforce, which the FCC has said in countless rulings they are not going to do.

The bandwidth petition: DENIED, the madatory bandplan petition: DENIED, and the FCC stated quite clearly that those were the reasons for denying them. Go back and read those rulings again if you don't want to take my word for it.

The FCC is under congressional mandate to operate in the public interest. Spending taxpayer money on measuring my frequency, amplitude, and bandwidth is not in the public interest any more than the FCC's own interest.

One answer I got last night was "well, the IARU reports to the ITU".

So what? When's the last time the ITU cared about the inner workings of the IARU, or even ham radio in general? When's the last time the ITU took an IARU bandplan and said to its member nations "thou shalt comply"?

That's not what the ITU does. Even if they did, there are a number of standards the ITU has adopted over the years that the FCC has either outright rejected or completely ignored, and has every right to.

Anyone honestly beleiving the FCC will automatically cave in to the ITU is only slightly less paranoid than someone beleiving they'll automatically cave in to the IARU, but is still a poor student of history and is overlooking or ignoring the politics surrounding this. That's a bit like beleiving that a sitting president of this country will automatically cave in to the United Nations. That doesn't happen either, and you should be thankful!

All the aforementioned paranoia is an offshoot of the paranoia I mentioned at the top of this post: that "the IARU is out to get us". This talk of "Barrrrr... they're clearing the way to make everything all-digital" or "they're clearing the way to make everything all-sideband" or "...all-appliance", or all-whatever; is putting things on very high horses indeed.

Now, I know a few of you automatically smell a conspiracy around every corner, but doesn't it make just a bit more sense to conclude that the IARU is simply ignorant of AM activity? Isn't it a bit more rational to conclude that one doesn't understand a mode they don't experience first-hand?

Hell, most of these people probably don't even operate, let alone operate AM (most people in beauraucratic roles involving ham radio seldom actually get on the air), so why anyone would expect them to consider each and every single mode in existence is a bit of a mystery.

I'm sure I'll get a bunch of replies from people totally misunderstanding what I'm writing (or taking one sentence/paragraph completely out of context, or just not reading all the way through), but since this topic just won't die, I guess that won't hurt anything now.

The moral of the story: don't attribute to conspiracy what can be better explained by ignorance.

--Thom
Killer Agony One Zipper Got Caught


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 18, 2007, 11:32:13 AM
Well..... ifn any of their crap actually sees the light of day, the term "AM Gangsta" will have its place in reality. I, for one, will not stop using AM till they pry it from my cold dead fingers. This is America, for heaven's sake. (or is it quickly becoming AmeriKa, comrade)

Buddly,
         Count me in as one of those types who won't stop using it on the band(s) of my choice as well. I guess the "Kilocycle Cops" will be monitoring 160 and 40 Meters and some of the other No AM allowed bands looking for people to operate in that mode. Our so called Amateur Radio Brethren willing to turn us in..

What do these people who proposed these ridiculous rules have against AM in the first place? They're totally clueless about it's operation, and the people who use it.

The ARRL went against the IARU in the past regarding a 40M bandplan. Let's hope they have enough intestional fortitude to do the same when it comes to AM operation and vote against the IARU proposal. If they in fact vote in favor of it, perhaps we could get up a legal defense fund of sorts to have another group represent us.

Just my two cents worth.
Joe Cro N3IBX


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 18, 2007, 11:35:46 AM
Joe,

Good to hear from you. 

Are you home and free for a telephonium contact?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 18, 2007, 11:46:34 AM
Tom,
       I'll be busy until about 2PM, and will be available for a telefonium corntact after then. Would appreciate talking to you OM!
Joe -IBX


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 18, 2007, 12:22:33 PM
I don’t think the IARU is out to get us.  As you say it’s probably mostly due to ignorance.  That‘s why I intend to write letters to the IARU Region 2 people and let them know how popular AM is here and how little of phone band is REALLY affected. Shame on me. It’s not paranoia, just effort. 

If I appear to over-react, it is my strategy to motivate others to get involved also.  To remain silent is irresponsible when an entity takes steps toward killing AM.  It’s much easier to defend an existing privilege than to do nothing and try to fight to regain it later.  As we have seen in the last year now, many of the rule-changing attempts come as “secret” surprises, understandably.

As far as I see, The FCC phone band expansion was not due to de-regulation, but a duty-bound response to the 2 petitions filed by the Communications Think Tank (RM-11305) and the ARRL (RM-11306).  These petitions were denied because of the popular comments filed against the petitions by concerned and involved Amateurs.  But the FCC did go to the trouble to change Part 97 to relieve congestion in the HF phone bands, one common and valid issue of the 2 petitions.

Anyone can file a petition for rule-making to the FCC at any time.  Shooting down RM-11305 and -6 was only a temporary measure.  The issues of bandwidth and new digital modes will not go away.  Ignorance is thinking these issues went away forever by December of 2006.

Yes I have been wondering how much on-air operating people like W6ROD, K1ZZ, W4RI, and WB3ERA actually do per week or month.

The conspiracy theories arise from the apparent lack of logic to the situation.  Most AM’ers I QSO with since the announcement of the band plan make essentially the same comment that they cannot understand the deliberate move by the IARU people to eliminate AM.  So add illogic to the list besides ignorance, paranoia and conspiracy.

So Thom, what is your reason WHY the IARU Region 2 issued a new band plan greatly reducing AM operations and in particular with respect to the fact that the new IARU Region 1 band plan did not?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 18, 2007, 01:14:39 PM
We don't want to lose AM privileges by default.  I recall shortly after Docket 20777 came out, with its clear-cut proactive attempt to curtail AM, I attended an FCC Forum at a hamfest/ARRL convention held at the Statler-Hilton in Boston that year.  Johnny Johnston was not present, but his assistant, Joe Johnson showed up, along with a younger guy (don't recall his name).  I was talking with the younger guy about the Docket at the FCC booth before the forum, and he mentioned, "We're even getting comments in from people who want to run AM!"  He appeared surprised that anyone would have had even the slightest interest in AM any more, and seemed to be of the opinion that the mode had completely died out of ham radio and was still listed in the rules only as a remnant of a long gone era.

That was the same convention/hamfest where the young lady who spoke at the ARRL Forum stated that it was not ARRL's policy to outlaw AM, but to let it die a "natural death".  She went on to describe the League's policy as one of "benign neglect".

Once the comments started rolling in, opposing the idea of eliminating AM, the League and the FCC took notice that yes, hams were still interested in using the mode, and ultimately the bandwidth part of the proposal was abandoned.  I was not present, but I was told that at another hamfest forum after the final decision was made on 20777, Johnny Johnston spoke at the FCC Forum with a sour-grapes attitude, "We had a good proposal, but it was rejected because a group of amateurs want to keep on operating the same transmitters they have been using for the past 25 years."

I don't feel any immediate threat by the IARU band plan, but now is the time to put the damper on any potential gain in anti-AM momentum that could result if the bandplan is left standing unchallenged without comment.  After all, the undeniable fact is, a historic, internationally recognised, amateur radio society is recommending that AM be limited to two small segments in only one band below 28 mHz, and that severe restrictions be placed on transmitted bandwidth for all modes.

And not only is there the AM issue.  The amateur radio community at large has taken notice that the League's proposed concept of limitations by bandwidth , which was withdrawn after the consensus as reflected in the comments to the FCC was soundly negative, has so soon reappeared in a different form.

Whether or not the IARU will revisit the bandplan (after all, the meeting in Brazil is over), ARRL and the corresponding other national societies will have been once again reminded that the amateur radio community is concerned whenever the idea of any reduction in existing operating privileges is being entertained.  If the issue sparked no public discussion or debate, it would be assumed that the suggested new restrictions have the tacit approval of the amateur community at large.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 18, 2007, 02:12:41 PM
As far as I see, The FCC band phone band expansion was not due to de-regulation, but a duty-bound response to the 2 petitions filed by the Communications Think Tank (RM-11305) and the ARRL (RM-11306).

The original phone band expansion FCC approval came roughly 2 years before either RM-11305 or 306 were filed. They then sat on it for several years, then released the R&O with additional enhancements to the expansion.

Quote
So Thom, what is your reason WHY the IARU Region 2 issued a new band plan greatly reducing AM operations and in particular with respect to the fact that the new IARU Region 1 band plan did not?

Could it be that several voting member countries of Region 2 already have bandwidth restrictions even before the revised band plan was issued. Bermuda already has max. bandwidth of 2700 Hz and in Aruba, AM isn't even listed as an operating mode. You might want to review the rules and regulations of several countries in South and Central America that are also members of Region 2. Regulations there may not be as liberal as to what the FCC imposes on us here in the U. S.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 18, 2007, 02:14:41 PM
My TS-430 is 25 years old now and I intend to keep on using it.

Call it frugal, but it's also the Green thing to do.  New rig production increases the Carbonium footprint.  Irb understood this but Dave Sumner doesn't.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed Nesselroad on October 18, 2007, 02:19:41 PM
Thanks to several of you for the patronizing, ad hominem responses to my post.  All I was trying to present was the possibility that the behavior of some AMers -- not most, not all, certainly not anyone on AMfone -- might have contributed to the way we are perceived by others.

Just raising the issue makes me the enemy?  Clearly, I am sadly out of step, if not out of date.  Heck, I think daylight savings time is okay, too.  

The AM community is obviously without flaw, otherwise we would not have so much time to cast stones.  

I do appreciate the suggestion to spend more time on the air.  Advice I'm pleased to take.        


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 18, 2007, 02:30:21 PM
Quote
The original phone band expansion FCC approval came roughly 2 years before either RM-11305 or 306 were filed.

And would still be sitting there in oblivion had 11305 not been filed.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 18, 2007, 02:47:32 PM
If some countries have more restrictive Amateur regulations than the band plan that is not a problem - a no-brainer.   So having a band plan that caters to the most restrictive countries and then expect all the other countries in the union to fall in line is totally absurd logic to me.

To argue to follow the bandplan of the less privileged seems silly unless there is truely interference on the bands.  I'm not aware of any of the other countries in Region 2 complaining of interference from the U.S. hams but that doesn't mean there isn't any interference from the U.S. hams.

Pete are you aware of any interference from U.S. hams to the other Region 2 countries?  (This is a fundamental reason for the IARU organizations.)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 18, 2007, 03:17:19 PM
It only stands to reason Tom, that the Hola Hola gang that hangs around the 3880 region receives some qrm from the states. We hear them too well to think the opposite doesn't exist.
 But your point is well made. To bring everyone down to the least common denominator only produces mediocity. And I'm not about to give up my freedoms and privileges for the sack of "fairness".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 18, 2007, 03:34:04 PM
Heck, I think daylight savings time is okay, too. 

OH NO, now you've fired Don up to the max!

Like Jack, K9ACT, I don't pay any attention to it now that I  have retired and don't have to get up with the clock.  I keep my clock set on GMT year round.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 18, 2007, 03:42:39 PM
If some little rinky-dink countries have more restrictive Amateur regulations than the band plan that is not a problem - a no-brainer.   So having a band plan that caters to the most restrictive countries and then expect all the other countries in the union to fall in line is totally absurd logic to me.

To argue to follow the bandplan of the less privileged seems silly unless there is truely interference on the bands.  I'm not aware of any of the other countries in Region 2 complaining of interference from the U.S. hams but that doesn't mean there isn't any interference from the U.S. hams.

Pete are you aware of any interference from U.S. hams to the other Region 2 countries?  (This is a fundamental reason for the IARU organizations.)

Remember, in IARU voting, it doesn't make any difference if your country has 6 hams or 600,000 hams. You have 1 vote. If the country already has bandwidth restrictions on their book for whatever reason, why would they vote to make them less restrictive or make them more in line with the current U. S. plan. Maybe in the eyes of all these other countries, the fact that the U. S. has no bandwidth restrictions has finally pissed them off. Get a bunch of the Central and South American reps to support bandwidth restrictions and the U. S. comes off looking like odd-man in the group.

I have no knowledge of interference issues between U. S. and other Region 2 countries, but like interference issues between hams in our own country, I'm sure at times they do exist.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 18, 2007, 03:45:02 PM
I still occasionally hear Spanish speaking AM ham signals that I presume are coming from Mexico, Central or South America but I don't speak Spanish, so there's no way for me to know where these signals originate from.

Mack 

On 75, I thought most of those stations were from Philly, Jersey, or Florida.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 18, 2007, 03:57:15 PM
I doubt if the bandwidths of our signals causes amateurs south of the border much trouble.

I think at least some of the Spanish speaking stations down around 3815 are in Puerto Rico.  I have been able to make out a few KP4 callsigns.  But you don't have to go south of the border to hear Spanish.  Our local Lowe's now has all their in-store signs in both English and Spanish.  We have Mexican restaurants all over the place, and a new Puerto Rican restaurant just opened about 3 miles from here.

Even with our expanded phone bands, I very seldom hear Mexican hams on 75.  Cubans are inevitably EPW (extremely piss-weak).  Other than possibly in Mexico and Cuba, I couldn't see US hams causing anyone south of the border any problems.  So why should they be even the slightest concerned about our signal bandwidths?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 18, 2007, 05:41:18 PM
I doubt if the bandwidths of our signals causes amateurs south of the border much trouble.

I think at least some of the Spanish speaking stations down around 3815 are in Puerto Rico.  I have been able to make out a few KP4 callsigns.  But you don't have to go south of the border to hear Spanish.  Our local Lowe's now has all their in-store signs in both English and Spanish.  We have Mexican restaurants all over the place, and a new Puerto Rican restaurant just opened about 3 miles from here.

Many, many retail stores now have bi-lingual signs. Many places road signs, traveler information, etc. are now posted in Spanish and English. I read somewhere, considering all the Americas, English is not the primary language.

Quote
Even with our expanded phone bands, I very seldom hear Mexican hams on 75.  Cubans are inevitably EPW (extremely piss-weak).  Other than possibly in Mexico and Cuba, I couldn't see US hams causing anyone south of the border any problems.  So why should they be even the slightest concerned about our signal bandwidths?

Maybe it's not US hams causing problems south of the border directly but with Spanish speaking stations north of the border trying to communicate with stations south of the border.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on October 19, 2007, 08:28:37 AM
Thanks to several of you for the patronizing, ad hominem responses to my post.         

ED, I honestly don't see any ad hominem attacks - there were several well written reubttals to your thesis, but I didn't see anything attacking you?

Don, several of us discussed "the keepers of the flame" recently at NEARfest, of which you are certainly one.  I for one thought AM was completely dead until the mid nineties.  In the 70;s and 80's back home in MN I never once heard an AM signal on the ham bands (other than foreign BC).

The community owes guys like you, Timmy, Uncle Willie, and many others a huge debt of gratitude for keeping the AM flame lit during the dark days.  Otherwise, the ARRL's perception of the death of AM may have even come to pass!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 19, 2007, 09:25:40 AM
Read Dave Sumner's response to some Ohio e-mails below.  Folks it's obvious that the ARRL is certainly not a "flame keeper" here and will not be lending one iota of defense on the continuation of AM in the HF bands beyond the new IARU band plan. 
Wake up and smell the BS.

- - - - - -


"Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:47 PM
To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
Subject: Emailing: Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008


Dave:

I have been corresponding with the Great Lakes Division Director
about the content of the recently adopted IARU Region 2 Band Plan.

After pointing out the limitations on the AM mode as depicted in the plan
he said he read it differently and had it corroborated by you.

I have gone over it many times but still come out with the same result.
It's not a complicated document compared to some of the FCC rules and regs
I have had to review over the years, and it is very direct in what it
stipulates.

The uproar among my contemporaries has to do with the restriction of AM
(the 6 kHz BW asterisk) to two areas of 80 meters and above 29 MHz, thereby
removing the mode from the remaining amateur bands.

The charts show a max BW of 2700 Hz on all bands and the aforementioned
"asterisk", denoting 6.0 kHz BW, is applied only to the above segments and
nowhere else.  The "all modes" label seems to imply that AM is permitted
on all bands, but there is no asterisk on the other bands to authorize
the wider BW.

Jim Weaver tried to make a separation between DSB with no carrier (DSBSC) and
regular AM with carrier, as if there was a difference in BW.  Of course there
is not.

Jim's statement that his view (of AM on all bands) was correct after
all, because it was verified by you, is puzzling to me.  We all have eyes...
why aren't we seeing the same things?

I know that the IARU band plan is voluntary and nothing will change
in the immediate future, but I'm concerned that the IARU influence may
affect other member countries and eventually my ARRL and even lead to
FCC NPRM's promoting the same guidelines.

I have heard a lot of "anti-ARRL" commentary due to the aborted "Reg
by BW" offered last year and it's similarity to the IARU plan.  I know,
of course, that the ARRL plan did not remove AM from any band, as
the IARU plan seems to do....

Aside from that, do let me know about your observations of the band
plan.  Do you read it like I and the others do?  You do have a front seat at the
IARU table, and undoubtedly know the content of the plan and what the
published chart states.

73,

Perry Ballinger  W8AU  (Life Member/50 yr)
..............................

Subject: RE: Emailing: Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008
To: <w8au@sssnet.com>
Cc: "Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL)" <k8je@arrl.org>

Hi Perry,

I was in Brasilia for the IARU Region 2 conference but did not participate in the committee that was tasked with updating the band plan. I was assigned to a different committee. So, I do not have firsthand knowledge of the discussions but I hope I can offer some useful background.

The three IARU regional organizations developed separate band plans decades ago. They have been very useful in providing voluntary guidance to amateurs, especially since most countries do not have the detailed subband regulations that we have in the US. They are reviewed and updated occasionally; the opportunity arises at each regional conference, usually held on a three-year cycle, but changes are not made at every conference. The last changes to the Region 2 band plan that I can recall were adopted in 1998.

In Brasilia the committee had three main documents to work from: the existing Region 2 band plan, a draft plan developed over a period of months by the Region 2 HF Committee, and the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005 after extensive work over a period of several years. The output document is modeled on the Region 1 plan, which has been in effect for two years and has not aroused any controversy there, with modifications to reflect regional differences. If you're interested you can view the Region 1 plan at
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

Efficient use of the amateur bands is something the IARU and the ARRL have championed for decades, and for good reason: not only does it allow more amateurs to use our limited spectrum, it is also an essential element of our spectrum protection and expansion efforts. Every radio service is expected to make the most efficient possible use of their allocations if they expect to retain them, and it is a precondition for seeking additional allocations. The IARU and the ARRL can't accomplish what the amateur community expects of us at ITU conferences -- such as the one opening next Monday in Geneva -- if we are perceived as promoting inefficient spectrum use within the radio service we represent.

I cannot disagree with your conclusion that on its face, the new Region 2 band plan would appear to discourage (but not prohibit) AM operation below 29 MHz except in the asterisked segments of 75 meters. The Region 1 band plan takes a somewhat different tack, specifically providing for AM operation in the "all modes" sections of the bands as long as adjacent channel users are taken into account. I don't know if this option was considered by the committee, nor do I know whether there was any discussion of 160 meters or the frequencies on 40 and 20 meters where AM operation commonly takes place in the US. Most of the committee was made up of amateurs from countries with little AM operation, and I imagine their attention was focused on other issues. Everyone involved understands that US amateurs, almost uniquely, must observe FCC-mandated subbands and have less reason to refer to the voluntary band plans than their counterparts in other countries.

The bottom line is that while not perfect, the new band plan for Region 2 is a good guide for 90+ percent of amateur HF operation. There are some aspects of the band plan that US amateurs are unable to follow because the FCC regulations don't permit it. There are others where US practice is different, and we are free to continue to operate differently as long as we take others' interests into account. There are times when a particular phone band is so crowded that using twice the bandwidth you actually need is discourteous, but there are plenty of other times when using AM won't diminish others' use of the band. As but one example, there's certainly no reason why anyone should feel guilty about firing up on AM on the upper part of 160 meters.

There is nothing in the band plan that prevents anyone from continuing to operate AM. There are no ARRL proposals, or plans for proposals, to the FCC to restrict AM. What the ARRL does in the future is decided by the 15 volunteer Directors, of whom Jim Weaver is one, so he is in a better position than I am to address your concerns about the future. But I can tell you that based on more than 30 years of attending ARRL Board meetings, it is very difficult for me even to imagine an ARRL Board voting to propose or to support such restrictions.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

- - - - - - -
...................................

My reply to him: (his text condensed from above)

To: "Sumner, Dave,  K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>
Subject: RE: Region_2_MF_HF_Bandplan_Annex_1_2008

At 11:16 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote:

Efficient use of the amateur bands is something the IARU and the ARRL have championed for decades, and for good reason: not only does it allow more amateurs to use our limited spectrum, it is also an essential element of our spectrum protection and expansion efforts.

I could not agree more.


I cannot disagree with your conclusion that on its face, the new Region 2 band plan would appear to discourage (but not prohibit) AM operation below 29 MHz except in the asterisked segments of 75 meters.

Thanks for confirming my observation... I couldn't get Jim to see the asterisks. :-) 
Maybe he didn't have his reading glasses on... ?


The bottom line is that while not perfect, the new band plan for Region 2 is a good guide for 90+ percent of amateur HF operation, and we are free to continue to operate differently as long as we take others' interests into account.

Other than AM I also feel that setting a max BW of 2700 Hz may limit experimentation.  Some digital modes already cover greater spectrum than that, and if "spread spectrum" is classified as to total BW in use, this experimentation would stop.


There are times when a particular phone band is so crowded that using twice the bandwidth you actually need is discourteous, but there are plenty of other times when using AM won't diminish others' use of the band. As but one example, there's certainly no reason why anyone should feel guilty about firing up on AM on the upper part of 160 meters.

I don't feel that AM should be considered as the "interloper" on any band.  In this day and age of suppressing discrimination, it would be unfair.  Although old technology, it allows home construction and resultant promotion of technical experimentation, something sadly lacking in today's amateurs.

Typically, today, AM operators have staked out spot frequencies on each band and consequently
do not occupy very much spectrum.  Discourteous activity can also be attributed to SSB operators who purposely crowd the AM spot frequencies in an attempt to be annoying without
being cited for malicious interference. 

I do not actively promote AM operation but use it only sporadically, and I would not deny anyone the use of the mode.


There is nothing in the band plan that prevents anyone from continuing to operate AM. There are no ARRL proposals, or plans for proposals, to the FCC to restrict AM. But I can tell you that based on more than 30 years of attending ARRL Board meetings, it is very difficult for me even to imagine an ARRL Board voting to propose or to support such restrictions.

But would they vote to reject a proposed FCC restriction?  :-) 

Thank you for taking time to reply in the supporting manner that you have.

73,
Perry
.....................

Great Lakes Div Dir response:

To: <w8au@sssnet.com>
Subject: RE: Region_2_MF_HF_Bandplan_Annex_1_2008

Perry,
 
Yes, I received Dave’s comments.  I’m glad he straightened out my error.  I told you I’m not the greatest technician in the world!
 
As to your question concerning voting against an FCC proposal to restrict AM, I most likely would vote to oppose this.  I won’t promise I would do this; however, it would depend on the situation at the time and any alternatives that may exist in such a proposal.  My best guess is the FCC will make no such proposal for at least quite a number of years in the future – if ever.  I’d think they would wait for AM to disappear from disuse before they would regulate against it.
 
I realize this is somewhat akin to a guy promising his girl that he will respect her in the morning, but it is the best we can do until we are faced with a specific situation.
 
Tnx for educating me a little further.  I’m first to say a Ph.D. didn’t make me all-knowledgeable!
 
Jim
 
Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division
5065 Bethany Rd.
Mason, OH 45040
E-mail:   k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 "
- - - - -

My thanks to Jim and Perry. 

Well there you have it from the horse's ///mouth.  The collective "actions" of the ARRL at the conference apparently is (IMO) that they need to represent the rest of the region rather than represent the U.S.

Have a nice weekend and please find some time to write feedback.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed-VA3ES on October 19, 2007, 10:33:23 AM
The response from Canada:
-----------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ve3iay On Behalf Of RAC
Sent: October 18, 2007 12:51 AM
To: Ed Sieb
Cc: Paul Courson
Subject: Re: IARU Region 2 update


Hi Ed,

I have no idea what the HF Band Plan Committee's final recommendations
are going to be. That's not in my bailiwick, because in Canada band
plans have no regulatory status. You'd have to ask the Committee, but
I don't suppose they would tell you before they are ready; I wouldn't
if I were them.

Anyway, the RAC band plan and the Region 2 band plan are both only
gentlemen's agreements. They have no legal force.

There is no question of "submitting". The Canadian band plans don't
"submit" to the FCC's band plans either. The HF Band Planning
Committee will make suggestions as to what it thinks good practice
should be, taking into account the IARU band plans in all three
regions (with more weight given to Region 2, of course), the US
regulatory limits, and current common practice, all according to their
merits and what kind of impact they are likely to have on Canadian
operators.

The suggestions will not make everybody happy, because that's
impossible - too many special interests chasing too little spectrum.
The RAC Board will be asked to endorse the suggestions, but that won't
somehow make them law. Some people will follow the suggestions and
others won't. The regulators will take no notice.

73,
Rich VE3KI
RAC VP Regulatory Affairs


On 10/17/07, Ed Sieb  wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> What is the current position of RAC  vis-a-vis the IARU Region 2 band plan
> that has recently been approved by the full
> IARU to take effect in January?   Are we  submitting to it's  restrictions,
> or are we going along with the  RAC Draft HF Band Plan (July 8, 2007)?  What
> is our (RAC's) status?
>
> vy 73,
>
> Ed Sieb,  VA3ES
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Courson
> Sent: October 8, 2007 8:15 AM
> To: VE3IAY; Ed Sieb
> Subject: IARU Region 2 update
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I corresponded with you a while ago discussing updates to Canada's
> voluntary band plan, and the idea of making voice activities the
> category of "phone" rather than SSB.  Thank you for helping see to it
> AM was not unwittingly constrained in your terminology.
>
> Today I write to caution the RAC against any early adoption of the
> IARU Region 2 band plan that has recently been approved by the full
> IARU to take effect in January.
>
> There are several people from the ARRL who, for unknown reasons, have
> pushed through some elements of their group's failed bandwidth
> petition that had been presented earlier to the Federal Communications
> Commission. This petition drew overwhelming opposition and was
> consequently withdrawn by their group.
>
> The suspicion is that the League proponents of that plan have now
> pushed it through the IARU as a Region 2 band plan.
>
> There is likely to again be an opposition response to this move that
> hopefully will delay or forestall a bandwidth-based specification as
> it now sits at the IARU.
>
> Kindly delay any early moves to align Canada's band plan with the IARU
> Region 2 scheme since it may not end up the way it now looks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Courson
> WA3VJB
>
>



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on October 19, 2007, 10:36:59 AM
All of this is 100% crap and is to be ignored until someone defines "bandwidth" (-6 dB points?  -60 dB points?) and how to measure it.  I wish typical Hammy Hambone well in trying to measure "bandwidth" with his ricebox.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 19, 2007, 10:56:50 AM
A a 99% power bandwidth, or a spectrum mask, or.......

In other words, the writers of the proposal are somewhat brain dead!


Here's a funny one from Sumner's email

Quote
The three IARU regional organizations developed separate band plans decades ago. They have been very useful in providing voluntary guidance to amateurs, especially since most countries do not have the detailed subband regulations that we have in the US.
Emphasis added.

So let's add more detailed sub-band regulations. That will make it more better! :P


All of this is 100% crap and is to be ignored until someone defines "bandwidth" (-6 dB points?  -60 dB points?) and how to measure it.  I wish typical Hammy Hambone well in trying to measure "bandwidth" with his ricebox.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 19, 2007, 11:03:25 AM
Quote
I wish typical Hammy Hambone well in trying to measure "bandwidth" with his ricebox.

With or without my preamp on ? 8)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 19, 2007, 11:16:58 AM
A simple proven fact now: The ARRL does not represent the U.S. Amateurs.  The League has been hi-jacked.  The only reason to be a member of the League at this point is to vote for Directors who will vote against the re-election of Dave Sumner at the Board meetings until he is out. 

Yes we need to hone our bandwidth measuring skills.  Bandwidth is defined in the beginning of Part 97.  It is an Occupied Bandwidth description although the word "occupied" is not used.  Some modes have a BW number assigned now,  THey are digital modes.  So the framework is there, only a slight change to the rules to plug in numbers for other modes.

It does seem to me that the old spectrum analyzers can be used along with "Max Hold" and some correlating rule of thumb (X dB. down) to give a BW number close to the occupied bandwidth number the latest spectrum analyzer would give for SSB and AM measurements.

The "bandwidth" term in the IARU Region 2 plan is not defined.  If it is necessary bandwidth we have a chance,  if it is occupied bandwidth we are really screwed, this includes all analog phone modes, get the picture?



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 19, 2007, 11:27:56 AM
But I do agree that the mask is the best, it allows use of the older analyzers easily.  The occupied bandwidth measurement makes data below -27 db (ref) mostly insignificant.  It is good to be looking down 70 dB or even greater however, which a mask can do.

It is nice to have in our technical tool boxes the ability to come up with a good ballpark "occupied BW" number.

But if you ain't on 160 and 40, you ain't on 160 and 40.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 19, 2007, 11:57:03 AM
The people who sold us out in Brazil are headed to Geneva Switzerland this weekend
for:

World Radiocommunication Conference 2007 (WRC-07) 
 
Geneva, Switzerland, 22 October-16 November 2007.

This has got to be Dave Sumner's lifetime dream coming true; headed into an ITU conference with an adopted IARU Region 2 band plan that curtails AM on HF, so fresh that most U.S. Amateurs have not heard of it yet.
 
The agenda of the conference is restricted of course to those with a TIES account.

http://www.itu.int/md/R07-WRC07-OJ/en

Any help out there?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on October 19, 2007, 12:42:13 PM

You could pray that the Iranians finish up their nukes soon and decide to make an example out of the Swiss. Barring that, it's back to letter-writing and keeping vigilant. Closed conferences like this don't offer a lot of opportunity beyond contacting the individual members and perhaps finding one to take our side. I'd put my money on Iran getting there first.

That was quite some old buzzard transmission Wednesday evening, Tom!  ;D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on October 19, 2007, 01:02:45 PM

It does seem to me that the old spectrum analyzers can be used along with "Max Hold" and some correlating rule of thumb (X dB. down) to give a BW number close to the occupied bandwidth number the latest spectrum analyzer would give for SSB and AM measurements.




Tom, I'd be willing to bet less than 1% of hams have a spectrum analyzer.  And even fewer would know how to make the measurement.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 19, 2007, 06:20:35 PM
Mack,

I have finished my homework that I am going to do on this matter.  I sent out band plan response emails to IARU, ARRL and ITU people late this afternoon.  At this point it becomes a waiting game for actually a couple months perhaps to find out the outcome of the ITU-R conference.  We don’t know what the agenda is for a fact, but for one may involve more 5 MHz. channels yet, as is mentioned in the IARU international web pages on Spectrum.

Out of courtesy I will wait a day or so to post my response letter on the AM Forum.  I did get a reply from Dave Sumner already.  I should be seeing the ARRL Eastern PA Section Manager at the Sellersville hamfest Sunday morning.

Of course it would be nice for the IARU Region 2 to consider changing the band plan before January 2008.  There is time and value for other people to respond also with feedback.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 20, 2007, 01:20:13 AM
Mack,

  I did get a reply from Dave Sumner already.  I should be seeing the ARRL Eastern PA Section Manager at the Sellersville hamfest Sunday morning.


Tom,
      What did Sumner say? Is he aware of the amount of people vehemently against the IARU proposal? PUULEASE query the ARRL Eastern section Manager if you see him at the Sellersville Hamfest and express how we all fell (for whatever it's worth). If I was able to make it on Sunday I'd be quite vociferous about it.

Best Regards,
                  Joe Cro N3IBX


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 20, 2007, 10:31:37 AM
The ARRL has a news item on the WRC-07 ITU Conference that starts in Geneva Switzerland Monday October 22.  My response letter went to most of the people listed in the top paragraph:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/10/19/101/?nc=1

Joe N3IBX,

I will be posting my letter here this afternoon.  Then I will post Dave Sumner's response.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 20, 2007, 01:12:48 PM
Here is the e-mail letter I sent out late Friday afternoon to IARU and ARRL people.  Dave Sumner responded fairly quickly.  I must have caught him working on ITU conference last-minute details.  No one else has responded so far. 
- - - - - - -
Friday, October 19, 2007

Dear Sirs,

The recent IARU Region 2 Conference adoption of a new band plan for Region 2 is a very sad surprise at my home amateur radio station here in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. for several reasons.

I urge you strongly to consider revising the band plan before the plan takes effect in January 2008 in regards to the restrictions placed on AM operations.  Also the bandwidths stated are not defined.  The bandwidths are too restrictive regardless of the bandwidth term implied.  Occupied bandwidth would be the most restrictive and far too restrictive. 

The deletion of AM from HF operating privileges except for 80/75 meters and 10 meters essentially would ruin a large part of my Amateur radio hobby if the IARU band plan is carried out.

Here in the States, AM has been growing in popularity the last 5 years.  There is an Amateur magazine devoted to the old tube AM gear – Electric Radio.  The ARRL installed a new AM operating position a few years ago the League station W1AW.

I operate AM on 160, 80, 40, 20, and 10 meters.  I started to operate 160 meters AM all year round 3 years ago.  Primarily I restrict my 160 meter operations to just 1885 kHz.  This past year I have been surprised at all of the new AM stations that have appeared on that frequency.  My list of different stations worked on 160 meters AM is more than 170 and I stopped counting quite a while ago.
 
The latest generation of mass-produced HF transceivers on the amateur radio market from these manufacturers all include AM mode:
 
FlexRadio products
Icom
Kenwood
Ten-Tec
Yaesu.

I currently have 2 home-brew AM transmitter projects in the works; one is a state-of –the-art solid-state Class E pulse-width modulated 350 Watt carrier/1500 Watts PEP transmitter for 40, 80 and 160 meters, and the other project is an AM transmitter circa 1932 screen-grid modulated 50 Watt transmitter for 40 and 75 meters.  I also have a state-of –the-art solid–state high-performance 1.5 to 10 MHz. AM receiver project in the works.  As the new Class E transmitters are the standard service transmitter today for the AM broadcast band, the old tube broadcast transmitters being taken out of service are lovingly being acquired and restored to 160 and 75 meter operation.

Even so, the amount of AM on the HF here is not significant, as far as interference.  The 160 meter band is under-utilized most of the time with plenty of empty spaces.  Only during one or two big annual contests does the SSB activity fill much the band.  The phone band here on 80/75 meters is now 400 kHz. wide; plenty of phone operating  space.  On 40 meters the AM activity is low and is usually just on 7290 or 7295 kHz.  On 20 meters, there is almost no AM activity, but when it occurs it is on 14286 kHz.  On 15 meters, this band is always under-utilized and AM is extremely rare here even in the highest part of the solar cycle.  On 10 meters, this is a popular band for AM.  AM is usually found between 29.0 and 29.1 MHz.; there is plenty of phone space on 10 meters however.

So why the zeal to eliminate AM from the HF bands, as seen from the U.S.?  I am baffled by the surprise plan.

I am told that the new plan is modeled after the Region 1 band plan.  But the Region 1 plan does not place a restriction on AM as the Region 2 plan does!

Another thing I am told is that the plan is voluntary, but I don’t take this lightly.  I know that this plan will be submitted to the ITU in time and can become International treaty.  In fact, ARRL and IARU members are now headed to the ITU WRC-07 conference in Geneva Switzerland October 22 – November 16, 2007.

I note from the ARRL Newsletter #38 that the September conference, some members voted by proxy.  This means that the issues voted on were known in advance.  I am disappointed that we were not made aware of the changes in process ahead of time.  This is not a fault of the IARU but of our representatives for the U.S. – the American Radio Relay League.  Only about 1/5 of the licensed U.S Amateurs are members of the ARRL today. 

This new plan was in the works for a long time.  The U.S Amateurs have not heard of these developments before the plan was adopted.  There has not been proper democratic and representative responsibility by the ARRL.  Surely, it must be an international principle that the trusted representative body for each country is to act in a proper and ethical manner.  This cannot be the case with the recent IARU Region 2 meeting and therefore the adoption is invalid.

In the IARU Region 2 band plan chart, the bandwidth column is listed as “MAX BANDWIDTH”.  At the end of the tables is “Explanations; Bandwidths – The number in the bandwidth column always refers to “maximum allowed bandwidth”.  “Bandwidth” is not adequately defined.  There are many bandwidth terms in existence.  My concern is that when it is presumed to be “necessary bandwidth” now, down the road after perhaps ITU adoption, someone says, no, that is the “occupied bandwidth” and we are in a big mess.  The bandwidth numbers stated appear to be necessary bandwidth and should be defined as such.

The ARRL submitted a petition to the FCC a year ago called RM-11306 to change our FCC Amateur rules (Part 97) to regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode.  SSB was 3 kHz, AM was 9 kHz.   Ed Hare W1RFI, Lab Manager at ARRL tells me these bandwidth numbers in the ARRL petition were Necessary Bandwidth.  Our rules with respect to mode and bandwidth were not changed as petitioned by the ARRL due to many reasons in the large number of comments submitted to the FCC against the petition during the Comment period.  (The ARRL wanted to add digital modes to the HF phone bands by having the 3 kHz bandwidth.)

Now we see in the IARU band plan the listing of 2700 Hz. for SSB and 6 kHz for AM.  Even NBFM on 10 meters is to be bandwidth-reduced to apparently 10 kHz.  Again I am baffled by the need to adopt such even more restrictive changes.

If some countries in Region 2 have more restrictive Amateur regulations than the plan, so be it and that is not a problem.   But having a band plan that caters to the most restrictive countries and then expect all the other countries in the union to fall in line is totally absurd logic to me.

To argue to voluntarily follow the band plan of the less privileged seems silly unless there is truly interference on the bands.  I am not aware of any of the other countries in Region 2 complaining of interference from the U.S. hams but that doesn't mean there isn't any interference from the U.S. hams.  AM in particular is not a problem at all.  Please respect this and remember that at least 80 % of all licensed Amateurs in the IARU Region 2 union are U.S. operators with liberal HF AM operating privileges, enjoyed greatly by those who choose the AM mode for many reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas O. Bohlander,  WA3KLR
1950 W. Swamp Rd., Quakertown, PA 18951-2160  U.S.A.
FCC Amateur radio Extra Class license, first licensed in 1968. 
FCC commercial “General Radiotelephone Operator” License, first commercial license 1970. 
Occupation: electronics engineer.
Amateur radio interests: HF AM and SSB, operating vintage vacuum tube transmitters and receivers, and home-brewing receivers and transmitters.
- - - - - -
Dave Sumner's response:

Thomas, despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists, whatever the shortcomings of the new Region 2 band plan may be there are no "restrictions" on AM operation. The band plan will not ever be submitted to the ITU. There is no danger of AM operating privileges being deleted in the United States.

While you have made a reasonable inference from the fact that some member-societies held proxies for others that were not in attendance, to the best of my knowledge the report of the Region 2 HF Committee was not distributed in advance of the meeting. I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

As you have noted, I am about to head to Geneva and in the remaining time am trying to concentrate on the problem of securing a 5-MHz allocation for the amateur service. Let me make just one other observation, which is that you have properly distinguished between occupied and necessary bandwidth. Because the bandwidths in the plan are voluntary guidelines and not regulatory limits, there is no compelling need to specify whether they are occupied bandwidths or necessary bandwidths. However, I agree with you that in a regulatory context it would be important to specify them as necesssary bandwidths. And for what it's worth, I am no less baffled than you by the NBFM bandwidth calculation.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 20, 2007, 02:23:38 PM
I guess I am an aLaRmist, never been called that before.  But better to be an AM phool today than a SorrySideBander tomorrow.

Well, it's sad to think that the adoption of the new band plan with it's significant changes were first seen and voted on in one day?

And the same thing may occur at the ITU conference.  I guess this is the SOP at the high-level meetin's.  A good reason for being an alarmist.

I was reading the IARU site some more yesterday and they are working on improving communications among officers and committee people throughout the year.

So we can add a new item to Thom’s growing list:
Paranoia
Conspiracy
Ignorance
Illogic
Incompetence.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 20, 2007, 05:01:42 PM
I wonder what will happen if and when Region 3 gets on board with the Region 1/2 revised band plan train.
Here's their current Region 3 "mode legend"; Note the Phone Section:
Quote
[Legends]

NB:   Narrow band modes including CW, RTTY, Packet and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

Phone:   Phone operation includes SSTV, FAX and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

WB:   Wide band modes including FM.

Satellite:   This segment should be kept clear of other operating modes.

EME:   Earth-Moon-Earth, Meteor Scatter, Auroral Scatter and other weak-signal.

Secondary:   At 7.1 to 7.3 MHz, amateur stations shall not cause harmful interference to stations of the Broadcasting Service.

On the International scene, U. S. amateurs have a uphill battle if the ITU gets an earful from many of these Region 1, 2, and 3 countries on band plan futures.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed-VA3ES on October 20, 2007, 05:38:33 PM
For what it's worth, here is the official Canadian announcement from RAC:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[RAC-Bulletin] RAC Bulletin #17 - Daniel Lamoureux, VE2KA,
appointed IAUR Region 2 Director


The most recent IARU Regional conference, the 16th General Assembly, was
held in Brasilia and wrapped up on Friday, 14 September, 2007.

A number of topics were addressed by the delegates and a synopsis of the
conference will appear in a future issue of TCA.  Radio Amateurs of
Canada was represented by Earle Smith, VE6NM, RAC president, and Daniel
Lamoreux, VE2KA, RAC VP, International Affairs.

Please join us in congratulating Daniel upon being re-appointed to the
position of Director, Region 2, IARU.
----------
Sent by the RAC Bulletins from RACHQ mailing list robot.
Send comments to: rachq@rac.ca


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 20, 2007, 07:44:24 PM
Region 3 phone 2 kHz bandwidth.  What are people thinking?

I sent an e-mail to a ham friend in Japan 2 days ago in regards to this bandplan business.  He hasn't responded yet but when he does, I will ask about the 2 kHz. bandwidth.  And we always thought those narrow Japanese filters were for DX and corntesting.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K4QE on October 20, 2007, 08:27:59 PM
K1ZZ's response to Tom's letter reeks of condescension.  It makes me ill.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 20, 2007, 08:35:46 PM
K1ZZ's response to Tom's letter reeks of condescension.  It makes me ill.

 ??? ??? What letter are you reading? I see nothing that "reeks of condescension" in his response shown earlier.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K4QE on October 20, 2007, 09:04:31 PM
K1ZZ: "...despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists..."

Sounds pretty condescending to me...I guess I'm just one of the alarmists.

I've had more than one ham who has heard about this "recommendation" express their concern about it.  Guess they are all alarmists, too.

I think it is the responsibility of an organization that is claiming to represent the interests of the US ham community to at least gather some sort of input from them (ARRL members or not) before voting to adopt a "recommendation".  I am a life member of the ARRL, and I received no request for any such input whatsoever.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 20, 2007, 09:46:28 PM
Just my two cents worth: I believe the executive board of the ARRL have been aware of this for sometime. K1ZZ made it out to be as if he just found out about the proposal a few days ago. Call me skeptical, but I think not.

Also, Tom, I don't think you or anyone else who has responded here would classify as an alarmist. Realist, yes. We're just fighting for what we believe in and skleptical when a major player in the ARRL acts like he just discovered the little "clause".

Why should we be skeptical? I for one, hang my hat on 160 AM, and spend most of my time there. Telling me I couldn't run my favorite mode on my favorite band would be like a leg or arm amputation. Would my radio enjoyment be curtailed? YES. Would I be angry if the ARRL, the organization I belong to to SUPPORT Amateur Radio would concur with the IARU? YES! Would I give up my membership? You BETCHA!

The above says nothing about the AM priviledges they want to do away with on 40 Meters and other bands.

I digress. The whole thing shouldn't even be considered.

Joe Cro N3IBX



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KC1XF on October 20, 2007, 09:54:48 PM
This was news to ARRL (Dave Summer) also. Just like the CODE requirement and then out of the clear blue, No Code.

Perhaps to link the ARRL to a Country Western Band - Asleep at the Wheel....

Just too busy counting the $$$$,

Today's mail from ARRL arrived - Looking for donations for The Spectrum Defense Fund.

73,

Fred


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 20, 2007, 11:01:39 PM
This was down at the end of one of Tom's posts, above.

Quote
Dave Sumner's response:

Thomas, despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists, whatever the shortcomings of the new Region 2 band plan may be there are no "restrictions" on AM operation. The band plan will not ever be submitted to the ITU. There is no danger of AM operating privileges being deleted in the United States.

While you have made a reasonable inference from the fact that some member-societies held proxies for others that were not in attendance, to the best of my knowledge the report of the Region 2 HF Committee was not distributed in advance of the meeting. I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

As you have noted, I am about to head to Geneva and in the remaining time am trying to concentrate on the problem of securing a 5-MHz allocation for the amateur service. Let me make just one other observation, which is that you have properly distinguished between occupied and necessary bandwidth. Because the bandwidths in the plan are voluntary guidelines and not regulatory limits, there is no compelling need to specify whether they are occupied bandwidths or necessary bandwidths. However, I agree with you that in a regulatory context it would be important to specify them as necesssary bandwidths. And for what it's worth, I am no less baffled than you by the NBFM bandwidth calculation.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

I laughed out loud reading it. Sumner doesn't have quite as much as Haynie, but everytime he utters one of these, he provides a bunch of quotable nonsense.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on October 21, 2007, 09:36:30 AM
K1ZZ wrote, (as quoted from letter):
Quote
I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

How can a person who is the secretary for IARU Reg. 2 not see it until after the meeting? Folks, I was born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday! >:(


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 21, 2007, 09:53:16 AM
K1ZZ wrote, (as quoted from letter):
Quote
I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

How can a person who is the secretary for IARU Reg. 2 not see it until after the meeting? Folks, I was born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday! >:(

Mike(y),
          Correct-to-mundo my 160M AM KOMRADE. And the both of us were not just born in a cabbage patch!
Joe N3IBX


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 21, 2007, 10:55:49 AM

Maybe he spent his time at the hotel room with some of the local ladies and liquor!?

Mack

Yeah, he looks like a player.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 21, 2007, 11:27:51 AM
Dave is about 2 years older than me but looks about 15 years older.  It must be all those all-niter CW contests.

He is secretary of the International IARU, not the Region 2 IARU.  Region 2 secretary was/is Reinaldo Leandro YV5AMH who was elected the new President at last month's IARU 2 conference.  Rod Stafford W6ROD (ex-ARRL Pres.) has stepped down as President of Region 2.  I don't know who the new secretary for Region 2 is, off the top of my head.

On a brighter note, the weather was beautiful at the Sellersville PA hamfest.  I talked with Pete WA2CWA, Reid W2HU, John W3AWT, Stan WB2???, Steve WA2DTW, Ken W2DTC (thanks for the donut Ken!), and the ARRL Eastern PA Section Manager Eric WB3FPL.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KB2WIG on October 21, 2007, 11:55:02 AM
 Now VJB is playing with Photoshop..................   klc


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 21, 2007, 01:16:49 PM
Ramon Santoyo XE1KK of Mexico City is the new IARU Region 2 Secretary.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KC9GMF on October 21, 2007, 01:25:18 PM
Although it would be best if all AM'ers could send out correspondence to the powers that be,
we all know this will not happen.

I was thinking if someone with web page savy could setup a petition page of sorts for AM hams, and others to sign
with their call sign and possibley being a ARRL member or not, we could all then pass on the hyperlink to other
comrades to go to and fill in the blanks who otherwise might not take the time to have ther voice heard.


73
Tom


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 21, 2007, 01:39:31 PM
Good thought, Tom/GMF, and welcome to the Forum, seeing that it's your first posting.

I wonder if it might be more effective to take the idea of a petition, but work it up into a thing that represents a group who all are signatories.

The difference, I guess in my mind, is that a petition is typically limited to a brief yay or nay statement.

A position paper, endorsed by those of us on this site, would explain why the IARU plan will not enable voluntary compliance as hoped. The discussion in the position paper would establish the prevalence of AM among hobbyists in two major countries in Region 2 (the US and Canada), and why the specifications would exclude us from being able to support their band plan.

It's a bit more elaborate than a basic petition, but maybe it's just a minor reconfiguration of your idea Tom, what say ?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KC9GMF on October 21, 2007, 02:21:48 PM
YEP, you got it! Just what I was trying to get out!

Postion and Prevalence. AM'ers just "are not" going to go away.

There have been 150 post here on the subject, and well over 2000 veiws,
so this would make the meek (like me) HEARD.

And the link might be posted in ER and other rags?

Tom


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KB2WIG on October 21, 2007, 02:51:59 PM
   "  Ramon Santoyo XE1KK of Mexico City is the new IARU Region 2 Secretary.  ""

Lets see if we can get Pedro, XE1YZY, to work on him.............  klc


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 21, 2007, 02:58:59 PM

And the link might be posted in ER and other rags?

Tom


I just heard from Ray of ER, he's on board for an Editorial.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 21, 2007, 04:01:22 PM
I talked with Pete WA2CWA, Reid W2HU, John W3AWT, Stan WB2???, Steve WA2DTW, Ken W2DTC (thanks for the donut Ken!), and the ARRL Eastern PA Section Manager Eric WB3FPL.


Tom,
      Did you bring up the topic to Eric, W3FPL, the Eastern Section Manager? if so, what did he say?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 22, 2007, 08:02:30 AM
Quote
Dave Sumner's response:

Thomas, despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists, whatever the shortcomings of the new Region 2 band plan may be there are no "restrictions" on AM operation.

He's correct here, of course,...... as long as you run AM with 2.7Khz bandwidth.

Quote
3600 - 3625 2700 * All modes, digimode, automatically controlled data station (unattended)
*) DSB AM phone allowedin this segment with a maximum bandwidth of 6 kHz.

The term "allowed" is patronizing at best. Can you say Hitler complex ???
Sure......... I knew you could ::)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 22, 2007, 08:18:24 AM
Good quote Mack!

(Spoken as you bang a 4CX1500 dud on the table.)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 22, 2007, 04:33:54 PM
Harbinger of things to come?

Quote
Thai Hams Now Authorized to Operate on More Bands

On October 12, radio amateurs in Thailand were granted permission to operate on 12, 17 and 30 meters and in the CW portion of the 80 and 160 meters on a permanent basis. Before this time, Thai hams had only been able to operate on the 80 and 160 meters on weekends during international contests; authorization to operate on 12, 17 and 30 meters was only granted on a few occasions for certain special event stations.

These new privileges are part of a complete revision and consolidation of Amateur Radio regulations by Thailand's National Telecommunications Commission (NTC), and follows more than five years of lobbying by the Radio Amateur Society of Thailand (RAST), Thailand's IARU Member-Society.

Specifically, the Amateur Radio HF spectrum in Thailand increased as follows: 1.800 to 1.825 MHz, 3.500 to 3.540 MHz, 10.100 to 10.150 MHz, 18.068 to 18.168 and 24.890 to 24.990 MHz. RAST advises Thai amateurs to respect the IARU Region 3 band plan.

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/10/16/100/


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 22, 2007, 04:54:05 PM
Who to address your IARU Region 2 Band Plan feedback to:

Go to these links for e-mail address information:

The American Radio Relay League (ARRL)

  For their officers:
  http://www.arrl.org/officers.html

  For Division Director and Vice Director:
  http://www.arrl.org/divisions/

  For State Section people, click on your state:
  http://www.arrl.org/sections/


International IARU (International Amateur Radio Union) officers:
http://www.iaru.org/

Region 2 (Americas) IARU Officers:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/executive-committee/


Even just a few lines to these people is good.  A large quantity of email coming in over the situation is an important message.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on October 22, 2007, 09:15:22 PM

I've been corresponding gently and respectfully with League and IARU officials (sometimes of course they are the same) in opposition to the  new "band plan" that places restrictive limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths on the bands 160 - 10m.  I've also compared notes with friends who are doing the same.

A couple main themes have emerged...

The typical response from these officials has been defensiveness and condescension.  They would prefer that we just ignore the bandplan because it is "voluntary", because we "don't understand the purpose", because it is "really meant for other countries in Region 2", or (believe it or not) "the new plan is not restrictive in nature"(?).

Also, putting all the responses together seems to confirm that, in spite of their protests to the contrary, the ARRL representatives at the IARU conference argued for the tightening-up of the bandwidth and mode limitations.  One IARU rep said, "That was an ARRL suggestion. They were worried that some people were using quite wider (bandwidths)."

Interestingly, responses to our messages to ARRL Directors and Vice-Directors have been either non-existent, or demonstrate complete ignorance of the issue. 

I urge everyone to contact your ARRL Directors and Vice-Directors (see  http://www.arrl.org/divisions/ )  and educate them about what is happening at the IARU. 

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS

Fitchburg, Wisconsin.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on October 22, 2007, 09:22:19 PM

A number of folks who found the IARU bandplan OK, and support restrictive band plans, have suggested to me that "the bands are so crowded we've got to do something!" 

I must disagree.  I passively listen to the MF and HF bands at least ten hours a week, and actively operate about an additional ten hours, and I do not find the bands particularly crowded.  And the interference issues that I do overhear are usually caused by one of two things:  either deliberate jamming and harassment, or a shift in propagation brings QSOs that were previously unheard to each other into conflict.  It is rarely a matter of too many hams on the bands...

Again, I feel it is vital that we err on the side of flexibility and less restrictions, rather than more and tighter controls that eliminate future choices.  If we are to remain viable as an organized hobby we've got to be open to a wide variety of modes, both old and new.

Steve WD8DAS


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K4QE on October 22, 2007, 10:32:57 PM
Quote
I've emailed all involved but being a non member of the ARRL, I get no responses from any of them, understandable. IARU guys don't seem to understand what the problem is with their idea.

Yes, Mack, this is exactly why it is WRONG for the ARRL to purport it represents the majority of USA ham community.  They, in fact, do not.  The only thing that is true is that they are the largest national ham organization in the USA, and as such, are a member society of the IARU.  Nothing more.

The ARRL membership only comprises 23% of the USA ham population.  There are 656,068 hams as of December 2006.  There are approximately 152,000 ARRL members. This info was gathered from the ARRL website.  Only a fraction of that 23% have so far been able to learn about the band plan because not every ham has access to the Internet.  It will take a month or two for the ham radio rags to catch up.  By then, those folks will be commenting very close to the Jan 1, 2008 adoption date.  That late response will be used to spin a story of complacency toward the "recommendation".  Yes, that's my conjecture, but it seems a likely one.

As I have stated before in this thread, it is wrong for the ARRL to ignore comments from non-members like yourself, if, in fact, that is what HQ is doing.  It is their responsibility, as the USA's only member society in the IARU, to take your comments into consideration.  I believe, as you obviously do, that such comments from non-members are sent to the bit bucket or the circular file.  I will continue to believe so until I see evidence to the contrary.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 23, 2007, 08:39:10 AM
Although a written follow-up puts it in the record, may I suggest phone calls to a few of the Region 2 representatives from beyond the United States ? 

It's worth the money for a few international calls since you'll be introducing yourself in a more personal manner.

After the conversation, summarize your points and the responses you received and send it to that person for their records. They then can pull out the summary come revision time, and use it for reference.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 23, 2007, 12:25:31 PM
Don, K4KYV and I had a long conversation the other night on how it seems 75 meters is far less crowded than it was 10 years ago. I wonder what others have heard and observed?



A number of folks who found the IARU bandplan OK, and support restrictive band plans, have suggested to me that "the bands are so crowded we've got to do something!" 

I must disagree.  I passively listen to the MF and HF bands at least ten hours a week, and actively operate about an additional ten hours, and I do not find the bands particularly crowded.  And the interference issues that I do overhear are usually caused by one of two things:  either deliberate jamming and harassment, or a shift in propagation brings QSOs that were previously unheard to each other into conflict.  It is rarely a matter of too many hams on the bands...

Again, I feel it is vital that we err on the side of flexibility and less restrictions, rather than more and tighter controls that eliminate future choices.  If we are to remain viable as an organized hobby we've got to be open to a wide variety of modes, both old and new.

Steve WD8DAS


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on October 23, 2007, 12:32:46 PM
I agree with that Steve, 

You still have your lids and jerks on the band, but it's nowhere near as packed as it used to be in the 90s.  I'd e-mail the ARRL & IARU about this shennanigans, but I got fed up with the ARRL back in 2001, and quit.  I still get literature in the mail from them asking me to rejoin, or like yesterday - to contribute to the Spectrum Defense Fund. 

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K6JEK on October 23, 2007, 05:07:04 PM
What about the ESSB crowd?   They should hate this too.   Do they have forum?  Should we try to get them on board?

I've written messages to the various players too.   I've been getting responses all in essence, don't worry about it.  It doesn't affect you.

Jon


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on October 24, 2007, 12:12:15 AM

A few interesting notes on the new IARU HF bandplan for 40 meters :

7070 kHz is to become the new Digital-Voice center-of-activity freq
7043 kHz is to be the Image mode transmission center-of-activity freq.
CW is only allowed in the lower 30 kHz of the band.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 24, 2007, 12:26:21 AM

A few interesting notes on the new IARU HF bandplan for 40 meters :

7070 kHz is to become the new Digital-Voice center-of-activity freq
7043 kHz is to be the Image mode transmission center-of-activity freq.
CW is only allowed in the lower 30 kHz of the band.

Steve WD8DAS

CW is allowed from 7000 to 7300 KHz. "All narrow band modes" and All modes" also includes CW. So it says on their chart.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 24, 2007, 07:37:59 AM
Quote
.....but I got fed up with the ARRL back in 2001, and quit.

Yes Ellen, and I know what you mean. Believe me, I do.

But this isn't just an American issue. The ARRL is not "representing" U.S. hams to just the FCC.
When they agree to be the U.S. rep for IARU meetings they put themselves in the position where they MUST listen to ALL U.S. ham opinions. ARRL membership status and agendas SHOULD NOT come into play here. However, since their restrictive bandwidth agenda already has they must be reminded that THEIR agenda is unexceptable.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 24, 2007, 09:10:20 AM
Quote
I've been getting responses all in essence, don't worry about it.  It doesn't affect you.

OK, so it should be fairly easy then for the two heavyweight players in Region 2 to remove themselves from making suggestions or issuing statements of support for the plan, since that would affect licensees in the U.S. and Canada.

We need formal statements, on the record, by those who represent Canadian and U.S. licensees at the IARU, stating their opposition to having the Region 2 plan applied to North American amateurs.

That would end the controversy and we all can move on.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on October 24, 2007, 09:31:58 AM
Various correspondents wrote:

>What chart are you looking at?? On 40 meters,
>CW is allowed from 7000 to 7300 KHz     
and
>Steve - Please show me where it states this.

I am referring to the new IARU Region 2 bandplan section for 40m.  I should not have used the word "allowed" - sorry about that, that was too strong.  But my point is that the bandplan expects CW to happen in the lower 30 kHz of 40m, rather than the lower 150 kHz as has been the case for some time.

Perhaps my posts on this topic are unwelcome - I certainly have received a lot of hate-mail and name-calling off-list about it.  I guess I haven't learned - I keep getting surprised by hams.  I keep mistakenly thinking they are all my friends, or at least open to a discussion.

I apologize if my concern about this has splashed over onto those who don't care, or support the bandplan.  I thought it was important enough have a discussion about it before it happens, especially here on a couple mailing lists for people interested in vintage equipment and modes.

I certainly hope it comes to nothing.  But I suspect this bandplan will become a source of friction and upset among hams in the years to come. 

One final point:  Compare the old IARU Region 2 bandplan from 1988

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html

to the new one 

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

and notice how the current one matches much better how we use the bands now, and how the new one is very different.

Steve WD8DAS




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K1MVP on October 24, 2007, 10:11:00 AM

Perhaps my posts on this topic are unwelcome - I certainly have received a lot of hate-mail and name-calling off-list about it.  I guess I haven't learned - I keep getting surprised by hams.  I keep mistakenly thinking they are all my friends, or at least open to a discussion.

I apologize if my concern about this has splashed over onto those who don't care, or support the bandplan.  I thought it was important enough have a discussion about it before it happens, especially here on a couple mailing lists for people interested in vintage equipment and modes.

I certainly hope it comes to nothing.  But I suspect this bandplan will become a source of friction and upset among hams in the years to come. 
Steve WD8DAS

Steve,

First,--I want to "commend" you on your website and articles you have published,--I for one really
have enjoyed "browsing" your site and have a couple of projects that are in progress that were
"inspired" by your articles,--the dual 807 breadboard transmitter, and the tube version of the "tuna
tin two",--good stuff.

As far as "speaking out" on these "issues", you have every right to do so, and just because the
"status quo" does not like it,--well that is their problem.
Your logic makes a lot of sense to me,--but many who have other agendas do not want to hear
"logic", IMO--they just "want what they want", and if they don`t agree they resort to "name-calling"
and belittling that person.
                                                       
You have "taken a stand" because you care about the future of HR, and there is an old saying,--
"If you don`t stand for something, you will fall for anthing"
I for one do not, do not believe you have anything to apologize for,--you are expressing your opinion,
and you have every right to do so.

                                                       73, K1MVP
 
P.S., As far as being a soruce of friction and upset among hams,--there are many other issues that
       have also contributed to this "division" whithin ham radio over the past 20 years, of which I
       am sure you are aware of.

P.P.S, expressing "no opinion" or "silence" on an issue also "says something", IMO     
   


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 24, 2007, 10:17:45 AM
..I am referring to the new IARU Region 2 bandplan section for 40m.  I should not have used the word "allowed" - sorry about that, that was too strong.  But my point is that the bandplan expects CW to happen in the lower 30 kHz of 40m, rather than the lower 150 kHz as has been the case for some time...

One final point:  Compare the old IARU Region 2 bandplan from 1988

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html

to the new one 

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

and notice how the current one matches much better how we use the bands now, and how the new one is very different.

To clarify, the "current" one is the old one.  The "new" one goes into effect 01JA08.

I notice there is an AM calling frequency listed on 7275, even though the maximum bandwidth listed for 40m is 2700~.  Wonder if ARRL will move their suggested AM calling frequency from 7290 to 7275? 7290 has now become the "Region 2 Emergency centre of activity 3".  I suppose the No Traffic Net will have that to use in their dispute with Ashtabula Bill and other AM'ers on 7290.
Quote
All modes,
Region 2 Emergency centre of activity 2: 7240 kHz,
SSB QRP centre of activity 2: 7285 kHz,
image centre of activity 2 7165 kHz,
AM calling frequency 7275 kHz,
Region 2 Emergency centre of activity 3 7290 kHz

As for CW, I see 7000-7035 reserved for cw, with 7000-7025 given priority for dx (DX window) and 7030 as the "QRP centre of activity".  In the "reserved-for-cw" section, that  doesn't leave much for general cw ragchew type of activity, or for non-Extras in USA, although 7035-7040 includes cw with "all narrowband modes".
Above 7035, cw is expected to share space with "digimodes" and 7038-7043, with unattended automatically controlled data stations.

BTW, any experts out there who can tell me what is going on with Adobe Reader?  Sometimes I am able to open a pdf document such as the bandplan, click on "select" in the toolbar, highlight the text I want to  copy, right click on it, and a menu comes up with the option "copy to clipboard".  At other times,  as soon as I release the left clicker, the highlighting changes from black to blue, and right clicking undoes my highlighting with no option to copy the selected text.  That happened the first time I attempted to copy the excerpt from the band plan document, but later on I went back to it and it let me copy.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 24, 2007, 10:20:14 AM
There's a nasty exploit out for Adobe Reader. Suggest you download the latest version or patch ASAP. Or use a different readder.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on October 24, 2007, 01:48:23 PM
In regards to Steve's comments and the ongoing "dialog"  on the revised IARU Region 2 band plan, the link below now shows a Region 2 band  plan dated October 16, 2007. The original posted plan was part of the committee's submitted report. I didn't go through it line for line  but it looks similar to what they had before. For definitions of the Legends, "narrow modes" wide modes", etc. go to the bottom of the chart. It clearly shows CW is allowed anywhere in Region 2 from 7000 to 7300  Khz. However, exclusive CW (i.e. no other mode except CW) is from 7000 to 7035 KHz. I may be wrong but I believe that was Steve's point.

The 2700 Hz maximum bandwidth stated for most of the rest of the HF bands, with the AM exceptions again noted at the bottom of the chart, is still an issue. Of course, if you were in Region 3, the maximum bandwidth, as stated in their current band plan, is 2000 Hz.

Here is the latest posted revised Region 2 band plan, dated October 16, 2007:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf (http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 24, 2007, 06:01:11 PM
This topic is now the all-time leader in number of posts – surpassing
“Gas prices are not encouraging hamfest attendance! How About Alternative Fuels?” with 177 replys.  This is a testament to the importance of the issue.  It’s not on the top 10 Reads list yet, but over 3490 reads in a few weeks is very significant.  (#1 is the Marconi net topic with 11,101 reads!)

I want to update all of you on response to my 2 page letter which was posted back on page 7.   I sent out my letter to a total of (18) IARU and ARRL e-mail addresses and 1 to a generic ITU e-mail address at the relevant ITU section.  This was last Friday afternoon.  The only person to respond to me was Dave Sumner.  Dave responded Friday afternoon yet as he was preparing for the ITU conference.  The initial response from Dave is also posted on page 7 after my letter.

My letter to the ITU went out before Dave’s initial response to me.  In that initial response, Dave said “The band plan will not ever be submitted to the ITU. There is no danger of AM operating privileges being deleted in the United States.”

Yesterday I received an angry (word choice?) e-mail from Dave on an apparent inquiry that would have been made by ITU people to him (or IARU/ARRL) at the conference.  So apparently my letter to the ITU which has an additional preface about an un-representative IARU Region 2 band plan adopted just before the ITU WRC conference was received, passed along and investigated by ITU people.  I have had no communications back from the ITU at all. But Dave was understandably ticked at me yesterday to find that I had asked the ITU to look into this matter of the whirl-wind sequence of events that the “new IARU Region 2 band plan adopted at that (IARU) conference has been quite a surprise to many U.S. Amateur operators”. “Most U.S. Amateurs still do not know of the new adopted plan.” “The U.S. Amateurs have not been properly represented in this significant change to the IARU Region 2 operating band plan.”  (Quotes are from my preface in the ITU version of my 2 page letter.)

On one hand I didn’t like sending out a letter like this to the ITU, but I felt it was necessary.  I also knew that I may wind up looking like a fool but also I could not live with myself if I sat back and did not do it.

So ladies and gentlemen, the IARU, ARRL, and the ITU are definitely aware now of our worst-case scenario concerns of this new IARU Region 2 band plan and the ITU WRC-07 Conference, and it’s unknown agenda.    At this point in my opinion, further contacts to the ITU from other Amateurs will serve no useful purpose.  We should just wait and see what develops; in regards to ITU aspects.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 24, 2007, 07:50:58 PM
Quote from: YV5AMH,Oct. 22 2007,04:47
Dear Friends, the updated HF band plan can be found in English at:

http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-cont....n-e.pdf (http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf)


 The version 1 circulated before contained some omissions, like the absence of a designated AM activity frequency on the 20m.
73

Reinaldo, YV5AMH


Reinaldo is the Secretary for IARU Region 2

Thank you Reinaldo for the update.
Are further revisions possible ?

--Paul/VJB

Key shortcomings:

  • The latest plan contains no support for AM on 160m.
  • There is no mention of AM as a mode on 75m.
  • No support for AM on 15m.
  • No discussion to support suggested bandwidths.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 24, 2007, 08:27:14 PM
NU9N AM & ESSB Hi Fi audio news editorial: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan November 2007

http://www.nu9n.com/news.html


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 24, 2007, 09:58:13 PM
Mack,

Dave was mad because last Friday he sent me the e-mail saying the IARU band plan would never be submitted to the ITU.  Then Monday or Tuesday ITU people must have come to him at the ITU conference with my e-mail about the IARU Region 2 band plan adopted that does not represent us.  I sent out the e-mail to the ITU before he first responded to me.

I sent Dave another reply after his angry e-mail, “curt” as he calls it, explaining the timing and that I only sent the one e-mail to the ITU and had no other contact or any plans of other contact with the ITU.  No doubt my sort of e-mail to the ITU is embarrassing to the IARU and ARRL.

Dave’s response then to my explanatory reply was greatly mellowed.

The lack of proper notification of the new band plan in the works before the IARU Region 2 conference and the voting for it by the ARRL is a valid complaint at any rate, regardless of whether or not the band plan would somehow get into a legislative track in the ongoing ITU conference (if even possible).


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on October 25, 2007, 12:31:45 AM

Apparently there are now two IARU Region 2 bandplans posted...

> http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

> http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

Interesting... and the later one, dated a couple weeks after we started
contacting officials, is somewhat more liberal with AM...  not good enough, but better.
 
I'd say our efforts are beginning to have an effect.  Or they are
putting some extra info out there to throw everyone off balance.
 
Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 25, 2007, 05:18:05 AM
Non-ARRL delegates in IARU Region 2 have been making good on their promise to revise the band plan taking effect in January. 

Steve and others have posted the first of the revised plans.

Within the ARRL, the club that represents US licensees at the IARU, the Atlantic Division director is preparing to consider a Motion he would offer at the League's board meeting in January.

Although that would be after the IARU plan takes effect, Bill Edgar, N3LLR indicates the League's people could vote to send a letter to the IARU acknowledging AM to some greater extent.

I was accused of having an attitude in expressing to him my frustration that individuals out here have to clean up from a mess made in Brazil by ARRL representatives.

Yet, as you can see from the response among non-League IARU personnel, there are receptive ears at the international group, who are willing to bypass the burdensome "League" process and the aftermath of the ARRL's failure to support AM during the IARU proceedings.

I again recommend contacting the non-US delegates in Region 2, and express your support for the revisions needed to support AM in the band plan taking effect in January.  They are still tweaking that plan, which involves other, non-AM matters as well, but wave the flag, won't you ?

They're good folks, I have found, with none of the intransigent, anti-AM defensiveness found within League-types.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on October 25, 2007, 06:46:25 AM
NU9N AM & ESSB Hi Fi audio news editorial: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan November 2007

http://www.nu9n.com/news.html

Don, I particularly like when NU9N states: "Amateur Radio is an experimenters hobby. It should be left that way with as little government intrusion as possible"!

This is the main reason why Amateur Radio in the United Sates flourished in it's infancy, and in later years to come. American Amateur Radio was the harbinger of development in the early broadcast radio industry, VHF work, microwave, etc all because we were left to our own devices to have a free hand at experimentation so new ideas and products could be developed.

Lets's face it, other than AM, some QRP/PW ops and some of those who dabble in the digital modes, what factions within our ranks really experiments and builds things?

I'm not being "jingoistic" here, just that I believe that even though the IARU plan is not law in all countries, those without sufficent knowledge may want it to be.

If our own organizations won't defend our priviledges, it's up to us to defend ourselves by communicating our concerns to them. In the past, the ARRL has always been there for us.
What Tom, WA3KLR and others here have been doing is communicating our concerns to continue to do so.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 25, 2007, 08:20:52 AM
Yes, anyone can contact anyone in the world.  That has been my philosophy for many years.  That’s why I didn’t hesitate to contact the ITU. 

With e-mail it is very convenient and very low cost.  The investment is just your time. 

The folks at the ARRL need to remember this and so there is accountability by our direct communications with these other organizations.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on October 25, 2007, 09:15:30 AM
Well Tom, all I can say is "Well done and Thank you!" I'm sure everyone on this board appreciates the effort you have put forth.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on October 25, 2007, 09:36:26 AM
Great work Tom. Much appreciated. I find it strange that a band plan would be worked up anf then not submitted or presented. Hmmm...

Quote
(#1 is the Marconi net topic with 11,101 reads!)


LOL


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 25, 2007, 09:44:38 AM
Quote
This topic is now the all-time leader in number of posts –

I don't think so Tom. The Ted Nugent thread went 20 pages !!

Kill it n' grill it !!!



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 25, 2007, 10:12:44 AM
Check this out Wigman !!

Can you say HIJACK !!!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 25, 2007, 10:43:39 AM
Thank you OMs and you are welcome.

Bud, I remember the deer-hunting topic now that you mention it, but the "More Stats" feature that appears at the bottom of the home page after you sign in shows this topic as #1 now.  I guess the Ted Nugent topic was completely deleted from history.

Now back to business, we need to tally which ARRL Division Directors are responding to people now as self-standing men (such as the Great lakes Dir. K8JE), and which ones only respond (if at all) after Dave Sumner gets back from Switzerland - those are the toadies.  Then we vote out the toadies next time they come up for re-election.

In Dave Sumner's own words to Perry Ballinger W8AU “What the ARRL does in the future is decided by the 15 volunteer Directors...”.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on October 25, 2007, 10:51:59 AM
Quote
I guess the Ted Nugent topic was completely deleted from history.

Guess soo..... but it still lives in our memories  ;D

I'll give Jim a ring and see what he says on the topic at hand. He's usually pretty responsive.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on October 25, 2007, 04:41:16 PM
I received the November issue of my radio club's newsletter this afternoon.  I have been sending some of this IARU band plan stuff to our editor. 

My 2 page letter to the IARU and ARRL has been published along with Dave Sumner's response.  The newsletter is not in our website archives yet.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on October 26, 2007, 02:46:04 PM
Notice that the bandplan now includes 40M from 7100 to 7300, and 20M from 14285 to 14300.
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

That is their latest revised edition.  Compare to the original
http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

The original bandplan as posted above had no 40m or 20m AM listed at all, except for the 7275 kHz "AM calling frequency" (@ 2700~ bandwidth?). Looks like correspondence with the IARU people did at least grab their attention and they have acknowledged by tossing us some crumbs, but the bandplan STILL HAS NO PROVISION FOR AM ON 160, which is where a large portion of the AM activity in N. America occurs. 

And not just in US and Canada. When condx are good, I hear pissweak warbly AM signals on 160M out of Cuba.  Evidently they throw together low power homebrew transmitters, probably built out of old broadcast receivers, maybe all they have to get on the air with.

The basic restrictive bandwidth limitations are still there, and there is still no AM listed for 17, 15, or 12m.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K6JEK on October 29, 2007, 01:48:55 AM
I'm a Diamond Club member.   I've given the ARRL good chunks of change the last few years for the BPL fight.   I'm going to get better answers than I have been to my various messages to ARRL officers about this band plan or this year there won't be any check in the mail. 

The Rinaldo email address in the NU9N editorial, prinaldo@arrl.net, bounces.   I presume .org is correct.

Jon, Diamond Club member maybe for the last time


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on October 31, 2007, 10:16:05 PM
A partner of amfone.net, the Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio, has offered its registered members a letter from its board of directors that would place SPAR on record with the IARU as OPPOSED to the bandwidth plan, specifically because of its impact on AM.

Please register and vote in support of this letter.

Dear SPAR Forum Member:

You may have heard that the IARU Region 2 has proposed a bandplan that
 should go into effect in January. As part of the proposed plan, a
 bandwidth limit of 2.7 kHz has been included at the suggestion of the ARRL
 representative to the IARU. Many SPAR members are concerned that a
 bandwidth limit will hinder the use of AM on the HF bands and also set a bad
 precedent. Recall that the ARRL proposal to regulate by bandwidth was
 rejected by most commenting amateurs and subsequently withdrawn.

The SPAR Board of Directors has prepared a letter to the IARU
 expressing our concerns. The proposed letter can be viewed and voted on in the
 SPAR Forum at http://www.spar-hams.org/forum/phpbb2/index.php by
 selecting the first topic under Official SPAR Business. We encourage you to
 express your opinion, whether for or against the proposed letter.

Thanks for your participation and support!

73,
The SPAR BoD




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W2INR on November 01, 2007, 06:25:49 AM
That is good news to hear Paul.

This thread has been viewed  over 4000 times. Now that we all have shown our concern it is time to do something about it.

I also think we need to make everyone know that the ARRL does NOT represent the majority of the amateur community. Paul could we do something with this?

I strongly recommend that we all support this effort.

http://www.spar-hams.org/index.php (http://www.spar-hams.org/index.php)

G


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on November 01, 2007, 09:45:30 AM
Thanks, Gary for weighing in.

Tom, KLR was getting queries from people about an email or letter campaign to let the key players know of the concerns.

Responding to that, I proposed sending out to selected groups an overture with contact information. 

That's still coming together, but this is the one I floated to Brian's AM Reflector, and Andy Howard's Southeastern Amateur Radio Club reflector.  I am getting some interesting and helpful answers.

~~~~~~~~
Quote
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: VJB <wa3vjb@yahoo.com>
Subject: [AMRadio] IARU counter-campaign?
To: amradio@mailman.qth.net
Message-ID: <166921.80522.qm@web52807.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Several of us are working up a possible shotgun
approach to contact key players and ask for further
revisions in the IARU Region 2 Band Plan.

An outgoing email or posting would present the problem
to AMers and our supporters.  The same email would
advocate taking action along certain key points to be
expressed.

Please post or send directly to me your suggestions
for this upcoming effort. Details are still coming
together.
 
This will require a rapid turn-around because the
Region 2 committee is already making revisions ahead
of the January start date for this voluntary plan.

Thanks for investing some of your time.

Paul/VJB





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on November 01, 2007, 10:16:25 AM
Support for AM  on every band is not the only issue of concern.  The entire concept of specific bandwidth limitations is unacceptable.  The purpose of a bandplan is voluntary segmentation according to emission type, particularly in countries (i.e. nearly everywhere in the world except for USA) that don't have government-mandated subbands in their regulations.  The purpose of a band plan NOT to set technical standards.

If there were to be specific segments set aside for AM, then they should be designated as exclusive for AM, and not merely restrict AM to sharing with other modes inside those limited segments.  However, I would much prefer a designation of "phone" as it now exists in Part 97, to include any form of phone on any frequency within the segment.  Let each country declare its own "AM calling frequencies".

If allocation by bandwidth is to be made an issue for "other" modes that may fall outside the usual categories such as phone, cw, data, etc, the language should be made clear that this refers to "necessary bandwidth" and not "occupied bandwidth".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on November 02, 2007, 05:11:41 AM
A onetime ARRL president, Larry Price, has been the head of the IARU for a while now. He wrote a vague rationale for the Region 2 plan that seemed to suggest he wants all three Regions to be "harmonized" without footnotes.

AM, under their scheme, would be a footnote.

You can take it the next step.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 02, 2007, 08:51:48 AM
"Harmonized" - makes me think of singing.

Then the phase from a Janis Joplin song pops into my mind - "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose...".

Harmonize = New World Odor.

Larry Price W4RA, "Wishing-For-Removed-AM".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on November 02, 2007, 09:17:14 AM
I think the term nowadayz Tom is GLOBALIZE !

glob•al•ize

Pronunciation: (glô'bu-lîz"), [key]
—v.t., -ized, -iz•ing.
to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide: efforts to globalize amateur radio. Also, esp. Brit.,glob'al•ise".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on November 03, 2007, 10:32:20 AM


I've had quite a few inquiries asking for a "form letter" to use to complain about the restrictive IARU Region 2 bandplan that will be going into effect in the new year.

I've posted an example text on my website, with likely email addresses to send complaints to.  If you choose to use this text please do not just copy the whole letter.  It would be much better if you edit it to suit your own particular views.  Perhaps you want to emphasize the damage to AM operations, or perhaps you are worried about vintage SSB, or maybe you don't like the whole idea.  But in any case make it your own.

http://www.wd8das.net/bandplan.htm


Steve WD8DAS

sbjohnston@aol.com
http://www.wd8das.net/
------------------------------------------------
Radio is your best entertainment value.
------------------------------------------------


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 03, 2007, 01:53:54 PM
OK,  rather than being a stick in the mud, I sent out an e-mail too.  Many thanks to Don, Steve, and Tom for their thoughts (which I incorporated into my e-mail.  Here it is:

----- Original Message -----
From: Ellen Rugowski
To: iaru@iaru.org ; leandror@bellsouth.net ; w6rod@iaru.org ; hp1dj@sinfo.net ; 9y4ned@tstt.net.tt ; ve2ka@iaru.org ; co2rp@jovenclub.cu ; gudiel@comtelsa.com ; pt2adm@pobox.com ; lu2ah@szama.com ; LPrice@iaru.org ; tellam@iaru.org ; dsumner@arrl.org ; relandro@cantv.net
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:51 PM
Subject: New IARU Region 2 Band Plan - Effective 1 January, 2008


Dear Sirs;

Recently, I learned that the IARU has adopted, effective Jan 1 2008, a new "voluntary band plan" for Region 2.  Unfortunately, it is my belief, that this band plan (even in its recently revised form) places restrictive limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths, overlooks commonly used modes and practices on the bands 160 - 10m, and is in some ways, unrealistic in it's requirements.   Here is why:

1.  The tight bandwidth restrictions go against the spirit of experimentation and innovation that are important aspects of Amateur Radio.  New and innovative modes of transmission, would not be allowed if their bandwidths that are greater than what the band plan calls for.
 
2.  Some modes that are used by Radio Amateurs (such as AM and ESSB), would be severely restricted frequency-wise.   DSB AM would only be allowed on small, 15 and 25 kHz segments of 80, 40, and 20 meters.  In the case of 80m, the allowed AM band segment of 3600-3625 kHz is completely at odds with the frequencies where the vast majority of regular US and Canadian AM operating activities take place: 3700-3730 kHz; and 3870-3890 kHz.  No provision is made in the band plan for 160 meter band AM operating, which is significant in the US and Canada, or AM operation on the 15 meter band (which sees AM activity above 21,400 kHz, during active periods in the sunspot cycle).  ESSB would be completely disallowed by the new IARU band plan, since by its nature, it's bandwidth is greater than the 2.7 kHz allowed for SSB.
 
3.  The bandwidth restrictions set forth for AM and SSB would curtail the use of some transmitters and transceivers that are still legal under present regulations in the US and Canada.  For instance, the maximum allowable bandwidth for DSB AM would be 6 kHz.  Many older AM transmitters have a wider transmitting bandwidth than this. They would need to modified or in some cases permanently shut down to meet the 6 kHz bandwidth requirement.  This is also the case for many older SSB transceivers and transmitters.  The new IARU band plan specifies that the maximum allowable SSB bandwidth will be 2.7 kHz.  Many older SSB transmitters that use the phasing generation method will not meet this requirement, nor would some of the older SSB transceivers that even use filters to generate SSB.  As for ESSB - it wouldn't even be allowed under the new Band Plan.
 
4.  The bandwidth requirements are not clearly defined -  with regards to bandwidth, what does this mean?  Occupied bandwidth?  Signal bandwidth at 6 dB points (as viewed on an oscilloscope)?  How would most Radio Amateurs determine if their bandwidth meets the band plan?  I have an oscilloscope, and know how to use it , but most Radio Amateurs do not have one.   As it is, an overmodulated signal will exceed the 6 kHz AM, and 2.7 kHz SSB, even if the transmitter meets the bandwidth requirements under normal usage. 
 
I know that the IARU, band plan proposal is purely voluntary, and has no legal authority in each of the member countries.  But, I urge you to reconsider, and at the very least, make revisions to this band plan.  In the past, band plans like this have caused conflict between Radio Amateurs who have ignored them and Radio Amateurs who have erroneously insisted that these band plans should be treated as law.   This is detrimental to the vitality of Amateur Radio. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,
Ellen Rugowski - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 03, 2007, 02:00:52 PM
Well, I already got one bounceback from HP1DJ.  Maybe he's feeling deluged with e-mails ;).  Word is getting out. I heard Rob, WA9ZTY (net control for the Midwest Classic Net), discussing it on the air with a couple of people.

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on November 03, 2007, 11:19:36 PM
A really excellent letter, Ellen.  Nice job...  Steve



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 04, 2007, 11:07:16 AM
Thanks Steve, :)

If anybody wants to steal from it for their own letter (so they don't have to reinvent the wheel), be my guest.  Just make some wording changes, organization rearragements, etc., so that it doesn't look like a form letter.

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Vortex Joe - N3IBX on November 04, 2007, 02:42:50 PM
Well, I already got one bounceback from HP1DJ.  Maybe he's feeling deluged with e-mails ;).  Word is getting out. I heard Rob, WA9ZTY (net control for the Midwest Classic Net), discussing it on the air with a couple of people.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

Good Going! Did someone say "safety in numbers"? Let's keep the pressure on!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K9ACT on November 05, 2007, 08:45:37 AM
I stopped reading this thread and now find it impossible to catch up but I did read the band plan in the meantime and think much of the discussion about it here and on the air is shadow boxing.

First of all, this does not include the bandwidth issue which is poison and must be fought tooth and nail.

I have seen refs to AM being limited to a tiny portion of the 80 meter band and not all on 160 and do not know where this comes from.


After reading it several times it seems that, other than QRP and DX windows, the Slop Bucketeers should be as unhappy as the AM'ers.

Every place we are,  want to be or have been is covered by the "All Modes" umbrella.  Unless AM is not a "mode", I fail to see the problem.

Our "window" was not spelled out but that seems more like an oversight than an attempt to wipe out AM.

The term AM may not appear anywhere but this is not the same as suggesting it is banned anywhere new.

I suggest that in letters and complaints we confine our comments to the real issue of bandwidth so as not to offer the recipients the opportunity to suggest we are misguided.

js


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 05, 2007, 08:37:56 PM
It's not clear to me how defending AM operation would be misguided.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on November 05, 2007, 11:22:16 PM
First of all, this does not include the bandwidth issue which is poison and must be fought tooth and nail.

I have seen refs to AM being limited to a tiny portion of the 80 meter band and not all on 160 and do not know where this comes from...

Every place we are,  want to be or have been is covered by the "All Modes" umbrella.  Unless AM is not a "mode", I fail to see the problem.

The term AM may not appear anywhere but this is not the same as suggesting it is banned anywhere new...

I suggest that in letters and complaints we confine our comments to the real issue of bandwidth so as not to offer the recipients the opportunity to suggest we are misguided.

AM would be allowed outside the asterisked segments if the bandwidth were limited to 2700~.  The only way to do that would be to roll off all the highs above 1350~ (making the audio totally unintelligible) or by transmitting one sideband plus carrier, which is not the same thing as what we call AM, but SSB with poor carrier suppression.  In this proposed bandplan, the AM and bandwidth issues are one and the same.

The purpose of a bandplan is to agree on how the users of the various modes of emission will share the bands.  The purpose is not to set emission standards.  Transmitting bandwidth falls under the category of emission standards.

The bandplan could be made salvageable by trashing the "maximum bandwidth" column altogether, and eliminating the asterisked AM segments, letting "all modes" mean just that.  Suggested "AM calling frequencies" could still be retained.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WQ9E on November 07, 2007, 10:34:07 PM
Well, anyone else in the central division probably also got this but an email from the director states that there is no reason for concern by AMers with the region 2 bandplan and states (his words, not mine) that the current uproar is due to a few ignorant people with issues making postings to unmoderated websites... 

I am feeling so good about sending in an official request to become an ex-member of condescending alliance of jackasses.

Rodger WQ9E (an ignorant ham with a Ph.D. among my other issues..)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: k4kyv on November 08, 2007, 02:26:08 AM
Well, anyone else in the central division probably also got this but an email from the director states that there is no reason for concern by AMers with the region 2 bandplan and states (his words, not mine) that the current uproar is due to a few ignorant people with issues making postings to unmoderated websites... 

Interesting.  Why don't you post a copy here so others outside the central division  could see it?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: John Holotko on November 08, 2007, 03:34:55 AM
Guys, you're getting all worked up over NOTHING.

Remember the ARRL's "mandatory voluntary bandplans" petition? How about the bandwidth petition? What do they have in common?

THEY ALL WENT DOWN IN FLAMES.

The FCC has absolutely no interest in adding further regulations to ham radio. They've said this over and over again, but something as stupid as an IARU bandplan comes along and everyone forgets that and goes all Chicken Little about it.

Put away your guns, guys (and put away your white flag, Mack). There's no fight here, and nothing for us to be upset about. It's just a bunch of tired old men trying to pretend they were ever relevant.

--Thom
Killer Agony One Zipper Got Caught

Still, better to get a little worked up and do something than do nothing. Sometimes it's good to let em know you're out there.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W9GT on November 08, 2007, 07:28:33 AM
This pretty much speaks for itself!  The condescending tone is incredulous and insulting.  I would venture to say that the ignorance is with the writer, not the audience.

7 NOV 2007 - 2050 CST



Fellow Central Division ARRL Members:



For those who follow FCC proceedings and already understand what the
IARU is and how it operates, a lot of what I'm about to say may be old
news to you.  However, we still appear to have individuals, who do not
understand the IARU (and sometimes even the FCC), get very excited when
somebody tells them their cherished mode of amateur radio operation is
in danger of being eliminated.  What follows is for the benefit of
these people.



The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.



The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.



The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.



There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".



I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.



I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on November 08, 2007, 08:13:59 AM
Thanks Jack for posting, I will use a few nuggets in there for some imminent mailouts.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 08, 2007, 08:22:58 AM
If the IARU is really so unimportant and powerless, why does it even bother to create band plans?

They can't have it both ways.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K9ACT on November 08, 2007, 09:15:22 AM
If the IARU is really so unimportant and powerless, why does it even bother to create band plans?

They can't have it both ways.

More to the point is, why did the ARRL endorse it and then send letters denouncing the stupity of the people who are concerned about it.

js


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: wd8das on November 08, 2007, 09:33:36 AM

My ARRL Director never had the courtesy to respond to my questions regarding the IARU bandplan and bandwidths (never mentioned AM initially), but now he has issued this broadside to all his division members explaining it all.  And calling us names.  Nice.  I'm so glad I'm a member of this fine organization.

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - - -

UNFOUNDED RUMORS: Region 2 IARU Band Plan & AM Operation

7 NOV 2007 - 2050 CST

Fellow Central Division ARRL Members:

For those who follow FCC proceedings and already understand what the
IARU is and how it operates, a lot of what I'm about to say may be old
news to you.  However, we still appear to have individuals, who do not
understand the IARU (and sometimes even the FCC), get very excited when
somebody tells them their cherished mode of amateur radio operation is
in danger of being eliminated.  What follows is for the benefit of
these people.

The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.

The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.

The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.

There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".

I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.

I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------

- - - - - - - - - -




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 08, 2007, 09:46:08 AM
Jack & Rodger,

You weren't kidding.  What a rude and condescending e-mail!  We're depicted as being like a bunch of misguided children.   Having my intelligence insulted always gets my dander up.  None of the e-mails to the ARRL or IARU (including my own) even mention that this band plan would have the same legal weight as the Part 97 regulations.  Some, if not all of the e-mails clearly state this.  What was mentioned, would be the friction this band plan would cause between Radio Amateurs.  I even resisted the temptation to overtly state that this band plan might be a back door route for instituting regs, that would hamper and/or possibly eliminate AM & ESSB from HF, so it wouldn't sound like I was crying wolf.

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Dealing with nonsense at work  


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W5AMI on November 08, 2007, 10:04:20 AM
For those are not on the AMRadio Reflector, here is my comment back to Mr. Isley, and the entire AM list:

> The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
> with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
> reflectors.
>

Dear Mr. Isely,

I find these sort of comments very insulting to those who have a right
to discuss and seek information freely about an issue that is of great
concern to them.  If you feel there are those of us who are "ignorant
people", maybe the ARRL should have posted an easy to understand
explanation to the public on their website.  Maybe even quote your
email publicly?

I own and manage the only AM email list that I'm aware of, and have
since 1997.  It has never been moderated because I believe in allowing
free speech when it pertains to any issue with the operation of AM on
the amateur bands, so long as those discussions remain civil, and on
topic.  I assure you that my policy on that will NOT change.

Sure, there may be certain comments made that are from those who do
not fully understand all the legalese and "loopholes" in these
documents, but perhaps not all of us understand the higher meaning of
things that you can.

Thanks for your terse explanation.

Brian Sherrod / wa5am



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W1VD on November 08, 2007, 10:22:17 AM
The following just crossed the AM e mail list wires...thought it might be of interest here...


Just received this mass-mailing from my ARRL Director.  He never responded to
my questions regarding the IARU bandplan, but now he has issued this
broadside to all his division members explaining it all.  And calling us names.  Nice.
 I'm so glad I'm a member of this fine organization.

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - - -

UNFOUNDED RUMORS: Region 2 IARU Band Plan & AM Operation   
   
7 NOV 2007 - 2050 CST

Fellow Central Division ARRL Members:

For those who follow FCC proceedings and already understand what the
IARU is and how it operates, a lot of what I'm about to say may be old
news to you.  However, we still appear to have individuals, who do not
understand the IARU (and sometimes even the FCC), get very excited when
somebody tells them their cherished mode of amateur radio operation is
in danger of being eliminated.  What follows is for the benefit of
these people.

The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.

The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.

The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.

There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".

I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.

I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WA3VJB on November 08, 2007, 10:32:34 AM
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org

George,

It is regrettable that we have to communicate through open, unmoderated venues like this, but we would like to help you comply with your club's rule that you can exchange thoughts only with people in your region.

Had you been able to expand your ability to assess the concerns expressed here and elsewhere, you may have been precluded from making some mistakes and creating some misperceptions in your message of Nov. 7 to your constituents.

Let's start with the biggest concern, that of the IARU's representation of licensees. No mode or activity should be given unfounded short shrift in the manner documented to have taken place against AM in the Region 2 Plan taking effect in January.

Within that problem, you have a misunderstanding of how this voluntary band plan has been presented to the public.

For example, the pre-amble to the plan calls on member societies to actively lobby their respective government regulators to have this voluntary scheme given the force of law. There is no distinction made among countries that do not presently have a "band plan" on the regulatory books, and those such as the U.S. that do.

After the ARRL's stunning defeat in front of the FCC when it withdrew its Petition to use bandwidth as a way to segregate the various modes and activities on the ham bands, there was no acknowledgment by your club that the opposition expressed to the U.S. government had been well-founded and convincing.

The common theme among those opposed fell into two camps, one that believes in the longstanding, popular system of using mode to organize activities, and another whose Commenters clearly told you that your group misunderstood the will of both subscribers to the ARRL and that of other concerned licensees.

You, too, have failed to take this sentiment into account, and it is at your peril that you utter a belligerent, defensive message questioning those with better sense who have tried to explain to you and your comrades why a bandwidth-based scheme is unworkable.

Paul Courson
WA3VJB



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 08, 2007, 10:35:43 AM
I just read that too, Jay. Talk about a load of BS! I'm curious as to what 'unmoderated email reflectors' this nitwit is referring to? Anywhere I've seen it discussed has been moderated with occasional intervention by the moderators to keep things from getting ridiculous.

Also, the discussion of AM being eliminated hasn't been all that noticeable either, more an accurate discussion of how such changes would negatively impact the mode of AM and its attraction to many. But this is one of the most telling comments made:

The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.

Being suspicious based on previous ARRL activities, attitudes, and approaches to such matters is a WHOLE lot different than being ignorant. While the ITU does indeed have final say, unchallenged input presented as 'what's best' can and has been adopted in the past.

Seems as though the "mini-uproar" is a bit larger than ol' Georgie would have his members believe. This is exactly the attitude that has gotten the ARRL down to the level they are at today. Minimize the opposition, classify it as a few troublemakers/loons, point out that it's just not that way. Reminds me a lot of their response to their poorly-conceived bandwidth initiative.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 08, 2007, 11:37:46 AM

Mr Isely -

I was shocked by the tone and content of your message regarding the the IARU Region 2 bandplan changes.  Foremost among my concerns is the fact that you never responded to my questions regarding the limiting and restrictive nature of the the proposed bandplan.  As a member I expected that you would take my opinions into consideration.  But instead you issued a mass-email calling those who have expressed concerns about the bandplan to be "ignorant".

I *did* my research before contacting you, including learning about the IARU and corresponding with ARRL and IARU officials.  The ARRL officials brushed me off.  An IARU Region 2 official indicated that the "tightening" of the bandwidth specs was at the suggestion of the ARRL representatives to the IARU meeting.   Have you contacted IARU officials to get this perspective?

You are an elected Director of the ARRL. In addition to your governance role in the League you have a duty to listen to the concerns of the members in your division, and represent the interests of all the members in your division.  I think you should be listening to your constituents rather than lecturing and insulting them.  You have a duty to be respectful and considerate of those members who might choose to tell you their thoughts. 

I remain highly concerned about these bandplan changes.  And it is not just about "AM" mode as you indicate in your mass-email.  I feel that tight restrictions on bandwidth are not in the best interests of amateur radio - period.  We need maximum flexibility to allow all sorts of operations and modes, both old and new.

Steve WD8DAS
Fitchburg, Wisconsin



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 08, 2007, 12:02:56 PM
How many weeks has it been since we started sending emails to the IARU and the ARRL?  I predicted that not much would be heard back until Dave Sumner returned from Switzerland.  The responses you now get are from the toadie group. 

Division    Director Name & Call      Vote FOR  Vote AGAINST
Atlantic   Bill Edgar         N3LLR      
Central   George Isely  W9GIG   .                          x
Dakota   Jay Bellows    K0QB      
Delta   Henry Leggette WD4Q      
Great Lakes Jim Weaver  K8JE            X   
Hudson   Frank Fallon     N2FF      
Midwest   Bruce Frahm     K0BJ
New England  Tom Frenaye K1KI      
Northwestern Jim Fenstermaker K9JF      
Pacific   Bob Vallio        W6RGG      
Roanoke   Dennis Bodson  W4PWF      
Rocky Mountain "Rev" Morton WS7W      
Southeastern  Frank Butler   W4RH      
Southwestern  Richard Norton N6AA      
West Gulf  Coy Day       N5OK      

- - - - -
Ignorance (if that's what you call it) is voting for a band plan that is contradictory to your own sovereign country's regulations!

Ignorance is not knowing at this point that there is a new IARU band plan.  The lack of feedback from non-AM'ers is due to this.

Ignorance is not knowing at this point that your U.S. representatives (ARRL) voted for the plan!

Ignorance (if that's the word for it) is believing that remaining quiet is the "nice" thing to do!

The ULTIMATE IN IGNORANCE (if that's the word for it) is arguing for your own organization's obvious mis-representation!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on November 08, 2007, 12:30:10 PM
Well said, you guys.

It has never been explained to my satisfaction why a Region 2 band plan is needed in the first place - regardless of bandwidth/mode restrictions.  Each country is free to regulate its amateur activity as it sees fit.  An IARU "band plan" that is unenforceable in addition to being ill-considered is useless and will only create controversy between countries in the region because each country has its own specific frequency/mode restircitions that may not be the same as other country(s) in the region.  Yet it all seems to work OK FINE now.

This bandwidth proposal failed in front of the FCC for any number of good reasons.  It is incomprehensible why someone would now want to dredge it up as the policy document of an essentially useless organization.  And it is patently apparent that W9GIG fails to understand the most basic responsibilities he holds as a division director of the ARRL - which is to give the ARRL members in his division a voice in Newington.  Instead he feels compelled to give them a dressing-down. 

This episode is right up there with the Atlantic Division election of a few years ago, where a well-qualified candidate was disqualified by League HQ for "potential future confilict of interest".  How utterly pathetic  >:( >:(


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 01:19:36 PM

It has never been explained to my satisfaction why a Region 2 band plan is needed in the first place - regardless of bandwidth/mode restrictions.  Each country is free to regulate its amateur activity as it sees fit.  An IARU "band plan" that is unenforceable in addition to being ill-considered is useless and will only create controversy between countries in the region because each country has its own specific frequency/mode restircitions that may not be the same as other country(s) in the region.  Yet it all seems to work OK FINE now.

Remember, it's a voluntary band plan.

For a bit of history, IARU Region 2, go here:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/what-is-iaru-r2/history/ (http://www.iaru-r2.org/what-is-iaru-r2/history/)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on November 08, 2007, 01:38:27 PM
That was interesting reading, Pete, thanks for the link.  Prominently mentioned toward the beginning of that document was the "SSB vs AM debate".  Further, they view their mission as some sort of advisory body to the ITU and OAS on communications issues.

However, my original question remains unanswered.  Each member country has more or less of a regulatory bandplan.  What is the point of a "voluntary" bandplan that is inconsistent with the current regulations in the Region 2 member countries - unless the goal is to pressure the ITU and/or OAS on institutionalizing such a plan?

Here's what the IARU supposedly does:

Quote
The Union’s objectives are those expressed in the Constitution of the International Amateur Radio Union and particularly:

1.  To protect and represent the interests of Amateur Radio in the Region in all matters related to the International Telecommunication Union “ITU” and with regional organizations such as the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (”CITEL”), sub-regional organizations such as the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (”CTU”) and others, and to coordinate such protection by IARU representation.
2.  To establish and maintain relations with Regions I and III of the IARU, coordinating and cooperating with them on all matters of mutual interest.
3.  To promote and coordinate radio communication amongst the amateurs of the various countries and territories in Region II.
4.  To promote mutual cooperative agreements amongst the radio amateur societies of the different countries and territories within Region II and amongst the various geographical areas within Region II.
5.  To promote the progress of the science of radio through experimentation.
6.  To promote international friendship and the growth of amateur radio in Region II.
7.  To promote the adoption of the principle of reciprocity for the issuance of Amateur Radio licenses amongst the countries of Region II as well as those of Regions I and III.
8.  To promote all additional activities related to Amateur Radio.

I would submit this "bandplan", on several levels, violates at least partially their mission statement - notably items 1,3,5,6, and 8.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 08, 2007, 01:46:44 PM
The problem I see with it Pete, is when it becomes a suggestion for rule/law changes, and assumed that it must be what we want since "our representative body" has suggested and/or supported it.

If it's voluntary/doesn't really apply, why bother? Why even suggest such foolishness, if we'll never be required to follow it?

The ARRL claims to support us as in amateur radio in America. The ARRL is the USA's representative in the IARU. Despite their choices increasingly going against what is best for amateur radio (according to responses, membership, etc) and only having something around 20-22% of the licensed amateurs in the country as members, they keep heading down the same road. All the while telling the FCC and anyone else who will listen that they represent us, they're doing what is in our best interest, and acting as if we want it when we clearly do not. Their lack of membership should be a very clear indication of that. Approximately 80% on this country's hams are not affiliated.

That's quite a message.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 01:51:31 PM
However, my original question remains unanswered.  Each member country has more or less of a regulatory bandplan.  What is the point of a "voluntary" bandplan that is inconsistent with the current regulations in the Region 2 member countries - unless the goal is to pressure the ITU and/or OAS on institutionalizing such a plan?

Bermuda already has in their regulations a maximum of 2700 Hz bandwidth for all modes. Aruba has 3000 Hz maximum bandwidth for all modes and doesn't allow any AM operation unless there is written government approval. It is my understanding that they have yet to give anyone AM approval. It is also my understanding that some member countries have no equivalent FCC regulating government authority for amateur radio operations and so look to the IARU for guidance in their amateur radio regulations. Likewise, their are a number of countries in Region 1 and Region 3 that also fall into the same pot as not having a similar FCC type regulating government authority for their amateur radio operations.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 08, 2007, 01:55:16 PM
If I were in the Central Division, having received a copy of that letter from Director Isely, I would have immediately responded, with cc's to League HQ officials, demanding that he follow up that correspondence with a letter of apology to all his constituents, particularly since he admits at the end of the letter that his "exasperation shows through" in this message.  My complaint would be that the condecending tone of Mr. Isely's public letter borders on conduct unbecoming to an elected League representative.

Mr. Isely has a right to freely express his opinion to constituents, but he could have done so in a more dignified manner to inform, without insulting.  Here is a suggested alternative, posted on another bulletin board by NE3R:
Quote
The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.

The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.

There is no plan to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.
 

From personal experience, I can attest that the League is concerned about maintaining a positive image with the amateur community.  A few years ago I had a run-in with a SSB group Down South that had decided to claim "ownership" of 1888 kHz, even though 1885 had been widely used by AM groups throughout the country for many years, ever since LORAN was shut down and the band had been restored to full amateur use.  While I made it a point to never deliberately fire up on 1885 when 1888 was already in use by that group, I likewise refused to move off 1885 several times when I had already established a QSO, and the 1888 group expressed displeasure that I was occupying "their" frequency. (Those were the same geniuses who complained that I was "running AM and SSB at the same time" - they didn't know how I did it, but they were pretty sure that it was illegal.)  Shortly afterwards, I received a formal report from one of their buddies who happened to have an OO appointment with the League.  The card had several condescending remarks about my operation, including that I was "operating like a CB'er", while failing to include any alleged violations of specific Part 97 rules or of good amateur practice.  I wrote a letter of complaint to League HQ, along with a copy of the OO report.  I immediately received a very apologetic letter from several HQ officials, who also informed me that the OO had been directed to send me a personal letter of apology, which he did.  They then followed up inquiring if I was fully satisfied with the OO's response.  I replied that yes, I was satisfied, and considered the matter closed.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 02:07:00 PM
The problem I see with it Pete, is when it becomes a suggestion for rule/law changes, and assumed that it must be what we want since "our representative body" has suggested and/or supported it.

If it's voluntary/doesn't really apply, why bother? Why even suggest such foolishness, if we'll never be required to follow it?

The FCC has to agree that the IARU band plan is what is best for our amateur radio activity and then set the regulatory wheels in motion. Why do you believe the FCC would act on this voluntary band plan?

Quote
The ARRL claims to support us as in amateur radio in America. The ARRL is the USA's representative in the IARU. Despite their choices increasingly going against what is best for amateur radio (according to responses, membership, etc) and only having something around 20-22% of the licensed amateurs in the country as members, they keep heading down the same road. All the while telling the FCC and anyone else who will listen that they represent us, they're doing what is in our best interest, and acting as if we want it when we clearly don't. Their lack of membership should be a very clear indication of that. Approximately 80% on this country's hams are not affiliated.

That's quite a message.

People can have a variety of reasons for not joining a membership organization. Just like some men go to brothels and some go to bars.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 08, 2007, 02:29:23 PM
The FCC has to agree that the IARU band plan is what is best for our amateur radio activity and then set the regulatory wheels in motion. Why do you believe the FCC would act on this voluntary band plan?

The DC Input/P.E.P power ruling comes to mind. Seems to have been adopted based on presentation and bias vs. good logic, science, and so on. In my opinion.

Quote
People can have a variety of reasons for not joining a membership organization. Just like some men go to brothels and some go to bars.

I'd equate it more to a labor union. You join thinking they have the best interest of you and your industry's future at heart. You learn otherwise. They use your dues money to support candidates and causes you don't believe in or agree with, so you leave. Very few labor unions left as a result. ARRL appears headed in the same direction with its current old boy network. Thankfully the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 03:30:12 PM
The DC Input/P.E.P power ruling comes to mind. Seems to have been adopted based on presentation and bias vs. good logic, science, and so on. In my opinion.

One has to remember the AM'er who "helped" fight this with the FCC's J.J.

Quote
I'd equate it more to a labor union. You join thinking they have the best interest of you and your industry's future at heart. You learn otherwise. They use your dues money to support candidates and causes you don't believe in or agree with, so you leave. Very few labor unions left as a result. ARRL appears headed in the same direction with its current old boy network. Thankfully the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed.

Sorry, have to disagree. Even though I was in management the majority of my career, I still believe there are some great labor unions out there.

"the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed"
Why would they; other than the connection of "communications". FCC holds all the strings for amateur radio.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 08, 2007, 04:30:09 PM
One has to remember the AM'er who "helped" fight this with the FCC's J.J.

True, but that wasn't the point.

Quote
Sorry, have to disagree. Even though I was in management the majority of my career, I still believe there are some great labor unions out there.

The few that do or ever did exist were obscured by the many bad examples, unfortunately. Having a spokesman for a group is a good idea. Having an organization looking to maintain its existence based on creating more issues to address, nah.

Quote
"the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed"
Why would they; other than the connection of "communications". FCC holds all the strings for amateur radio.

Taken out of context, Pete. 'Thankfully' since more of the few unions remaining look for gov't intervention to maintain their presence. Happened here in VT under Sceamin' Dean, the Legislature had to pass a bill requiring all new state gov't hires pay partial dues to save the union, even if they didn't want representation. Same thing happened in Washington state after the employee's union paid for the last of three recounts that put a different governor in than the first three counts had shown. Both states that you'd think would embrace the worker's union concept, yet people chose not to.

Which gets back to the ARRL comparison, and being thankful that the FCC hasn't intervened on their behalf as some state gov'ts have for unions 'for the good of the organization'. It's not much of a stretch, really. Both claim to represent the best interest of their likely constituents.

It's not like the League has never suggested anything ridiculous before.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 05:24:08 PM
It's not like the League has never suggested anything ridiculous before.

Of course, you don't have to look too far to see the same thing within the amateur ranks either.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 08, 2007, 06:41:22 PM


Bermuda already has in their regulations a maximum of 2700 Hz bandwidth for all modes. Aruba has 3000 Hz maximum bandwidth for all modes and doesn't allow any AM operation unless there is written government approval. It is my understanding that they have yet to give anyone AM approval. It is also my understanding that some member countries have no equivalent FCC regulating government authority for amateur radio operations and so look to the IARU for guidance in their amateur radio regulations. Likewise, their are a number of countries in Region 1 and Region 3 that also fall into the same pot as not having a similar FCC type regulating government authority for their amateur radio operations.

Thanks, Pete, you proved my point for me - that is, there are already many incompatible regulations amongst Region 2 countries but this incompatibility hasn't caused ANY problems I'm aware of.  I lived in Cuba for 2 years and did a lot of listening.  Even during hurricane emergencies when Cuban hams were very active passing traffic, I did not identify a single instance of stateside activity - AM or not - interfering with the emergency nets in Cuba, or any other activity for that matter.

Quote
The FCC has to agree that the IARU band plan is what is best for our amateur radio activity and then set the regulatory wheels in motion. Why do you believe the FCC would act on this voluntary band plan?

The FCC (until this most recent meeting) also attends ITU meetings dealing with spectrum issues.  It is true that the FCC has already spoken loudly and correctly on this issue; however, do we need yet another fight about this if the ITU decides to try and enforce this garbage?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 08, 2007, 07:21:23 PM
I just sent this off to W9GIG and the Atlantic Division director:

Mr. Edgar -

Although I am not currently a member of the ARRL (I declined to renew my membership a few years ago due to what I viewed as some unjustified unpleasantness in the Atlantic Division dealing with "potential conflicts of interest"), I understand that Division Directors are the amateur's conduit to ARRL management for question or comment on ARRL policies.  Thus my question to you.

I am sure you are aware of the controversy regarding the Region 2 IARU Band Plan, and the rather condescending letter send by the Central Division director.  If you are by chance not aware of this letter, I have taken the liberty of providing a copy (below) for your convenience and reference.

First, the missive below is unfortunate in that it is dismissive of many of us who are skeptical of the motives and the goals of the IARU-2 bandplan.  The assertion that we are gullible, do not understand the IARU, or the FCC, is patently incorrect and is unsubstantiated by any facts.  On the contrary, I would submit that we might perhaps understand this issue a bit more than W9GIG.  I will not devolve to W9GIG's strategy of ad hominem attacks against his critics - my "cherished mode" of operation is, after all, just as valid (if not more so) than any other amateur's.

The shortcomings of the IARU-2 bandplan are many.  First, it is based upon the faulty and unproven premise that there is interference due to differing bandwidth signals amongst the Region 2 countries.  I very possibly could be missing something, but I lived in Cuba for 2 years, did a lot of listening, and never once witnessed Cuban/US mode incompatibility problems (nor any real interference issues at all).  If there are such issues I would be interested in seeing the proof that they exist.

Second, one of the reasons the ARRL regulation-by-bandwidth proposal failed was that bandwidth was never strictly defined, nor was any method of measuring same defined.  Would bandwidth be measured at the -3dB points?  -6dB points?  -30 dB points?  How, and with what instrument that is readily available to most amateurs?  Although I have 22 years of experience as an RF engineer, I must tell you that measuring the bandwidth - even when that term is strictly defined - is no easy task on non-repetitive signals such as voice.  Because of my interest in AM (as well as my committment to having a clean signal) I have two professional-grade spectrum analyzers in my shack - a Tektronix 496 and a Hewlett-Packard 1751 - but how many other amateurs are as fortunate to have access to similar instruments (not to mention the expertise to effectively use them)?

And last (but certainly not least), the bandplan neglects several very popular niches of the hobby.  While W9GIG may assert that "it's only a bandplan and unenforceable" it has the potential to create controversy where none has previously existed.  Despite Mr. Isely's dissmissive attitude towards "cherished modes", AM, ESSB, and other wider-bandwidth modes are gaining in popularity.  To eliminate them from something that may be eventually considered as policy by the ITU (see below) is unacceptable to us.

The IARU Region 2 states that one of its goals is "To protect and represent the interests of Amateur Radio in the Region in all matters related to the International Telecommunication Union “ITU” and with regional organizations such as the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (”CITEL”), sub-regional organizations such as the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (”CTU”) and others, and to coordinate such protection by IARU representation."  The IARU-2 bandplan, despite the fact that the FCC refused to adopt its essential goals (separation by bandwidth of operation), appears to me to be a back-door effort to revisit an issue many of us already considered as dead - this time, to the ITU.

It is true that the FCC makes, and enforces, the rules governing the Amateur Service in the US.  It is also true, however, that the US (being an ITU member), is obligated to consider international spectrum plans and develop strategies to ensure that US radio activity (amateur or other) does not interfere with other countries' radio services.    My question (I'm sure you've been wading thru all of this wondering when it would finally appear!) to the ARRL is,  WHY then, given all of the shortcomings of the IARU-2 plan, and given the opposition by many who have "cherished modes" of one sort or another, would the ARRL so staunchly defend this?  What is to be gained by it going forward if, as W9GIG asserts, the IARU-2 bandplan is essentially meaningless?  If it is meaningless, then why the impassioned defense of it?

Mr. Isley is right.  I do not "get it".  I therefore would greatly appreciate you explaining this to me.

Thank you very much for your time, and best of 73s!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 08:22:43 PM

Thanks, Pete, you proved my point for me - that is, there are already many incompatible regulations amongst Region 2 countries but this incompatibility hasn't caused ANY problems I'm aware of.

Unless you've had dialog with all amateur radio representatives in the member countries of Region 2, you really don't know. And, yes, there are many incompatible regulations and/or voluntary band plans in existence today; hence the reason for a revised voluntary band plan that all member nations of Region 2 agreed upon.

Quote
The FCC (until this most recent meeting) also attends ITU meetings dealing with spectrum issues.  It is true that the FCC has already spoken loudly and correctly on this issue; however, do we need yet another fight about this if the ITU decides to try and enforce this garbage?

The ITU conference agenda was casted in concrete months before the IARU voted on a revised Region 2 voluntary band plan. There is nothing on the ITU agenda that is even remotely connected with any IARU voluntary band plans. Actually, most of the ITU business conference agenda, now in progress, will have little to do with amateur radio.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 08, 2007, 08:44:20 PM
Is this the last time the ITU is ever going to meet, Pete?

You are correct in your assertion that I do not know of any problems between countries.  One would think, however, if this were such an important issue, that such problems would be cited with examples given.  I see no evidence of them.  If they exist I would like to see them.

How would this bandplan resolve regulatory differences between member countries, when it discourages practices that are already legal?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 08, 2007, 09:17:21 PM
Is this the last time the ITU is ever going to meet, Pete?
Next one, I believe, is 2011. You can confirm that on the ITU page.

Quote
You are correct in your assertion that I do not know of any problems between countries.  One would think, however, if this were such an important issue, that such problems would be cited with examples given.  I see no evidence of them.  If they exist I would like to see them.

I would suspect there was lots of dialog among member representatives and at past IARU meetings that helped formulate the data for the revised plan. I seem to recall that a revised Region 2 band plan had been in discussion for the last several years. If you were a member representative in the IARU, you probably would have seen some of the information, or heard some presentation, that lead up to the revised Region 2 band plan.

It's also been documented  on the IARU web site that member reps do meet on a regular basis on 20 meters. No frequency was posted.

Quote
How would this bandplan resolve regulatory differences between member countries, when it discourages practices that are already legal?

I think part of the issue is that some countries don't have real regulatory amateur radio control as we do here in the U.S. and so they look to the IARU for their amateur radio band plan guidance.
"when it discourages practices that are already legal"
Maybe that's why it's called a voluntary IARU Region 2 band plan.

I seem to recall words and phrases associated with our own "good operating practices" or  "considerate operator's guide" that would tend to discourage practices that some amateurs exhibit at times on the air that are still considered "legal". But again, "good operating practices" and "considerate operator's guide" are also voluntary activities.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 09, 2007, 05:00:44 AM
Actually, Pete, yes, I have had conversations with nearly all the Region 2 reps that took part in the development of the revised band plan, and this came about without any documentation nor substantiation of any problems.

It was prompted by two things, and I suggest that you can make the calls yourself to confirm:

1. Paul Rinaldo expressing vague concerns about people running wider than 2.7Kc

2. Using the Region 1 IARU band plan as a basis for Region 2.

John,
When I paid $39 to take part in the recent ARRL survey, it made me a subscriber for some reason. I have associated myself with your remarks to Bill Edgar, and have asked him in an email to copy me in his reply to you.  This will cancel any inclination to ignore a non-subscriber like yourself.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 09, 2007, 05:43:29 AM
Charlie posted this over on QRZ.com in response to the Isley letter.


My reply:

George,

RE: Bandwidth limitation letter

I know you are upset, but I'd suggest if you want to be mad, direct it at Paul Renaldo for proposing the bandwidth limitation without explaining it fully.    Some ARRL guy works something into the plan without explaining what the implications are and the whole world is wrong for misunderstanding?  The same guy who was pushing the bandwidth petition and we're supposed to just "understand"? It would be nice to see all that hostility directed at the right person. Thanks for what you do for all ARRL members.

Charlie
AG4YO

Edited by AG4YO on Nov. 08 2007,11:39

--------------
Charlie, AG4YO


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 09, 2007, 06:37:29 AM

John,
When I paid $39 to take part in the recent ARRL survey, it made me a subscriber for some reason. I have associated myself with your remarks to Bill Edgar, and have asked him in an email to copy me in his reply to you.  This will cancel any inclination to ignore a non-subscriber like yourself.

TNX, Paul, much appreciated.  I have not had much success in the past in obtaining responses to emails I sent to my Director nor Headquarters, even when I was a member.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 09, 2007, 09:10:26 AM
And then they wonder why most amateurs aren't members.



John,
When I paid $39 to take part in the recent ARRL survey, it made me a subscriber for some reason. I have associated myself with your remarks to Bill Edgar, and have asked him in an email to copy me in his reply to you.  This will cancel any inclination to ignore a non-subscriber like yourself.

TNX, Paul, much appreciated.  I have not had much success in the past in obtaining responses to emails I sent to my Director nor Headquarters, even when I was a member.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 09, 2007, 09:28:57 AM

>The card had several condescending remarks about my operation,
>including that I was "operating like a CB'er",

You know, I've heard that complaint made about others... and when I pushed for an explanation of what they meant, it was explained that the guys in question were having a lot of laughs and fun in a fast-paced multi-station conversation.

In addition to tolerance regarding bandwidth I think we also need some tolerance about what constitutes "correct" amateur operation.

Steve WD8DAS


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 09, 2007, 09:40:32 AM
Steve, you know that correct amateur practice only includes dull conversations peppered with HI, HI and FB. Anything else, especially if it resembles a normal conversation, is strictly forbidden.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 09, 2007, 10:22:14 AM
Steve, you know that correct amateur practice only includes dull conversations peppered with HI, HI and FB. Anything else, especially if it resembles a normal conversation, is strictly forbidden.

Except yelling CQ CORNTEST!! This is strongly supported and even encouraged by the League. Wouldn't surprise me if contesters make up the largest part of membership these days. After all, plenty of publicity in QST or online, and all kinds of shiny ads for the new Yaecomewood super rigs. Any real contester needs at least 5.  ::)

Strange thing is, I don't remember contesting being anything like what it is today, back in the 70s when I first started listening. Folks didn't seem to despise it like they do now, and the majority of ops seemed more concerned with reasonable operating practices rather than ego. I used to enjoy Field Day.

You wanna regulate something that negatively impacts every mode and every country with access to the spectrum? Regulate contesting. Unlike AM, ESSB or other modes that impact a few frequencies at any given time, contesting wipes out entire bands or large portions, preventing anyone but those who contest from using them. And it's completely intentional. How sensible is that? It would bring far greater harmony than any mode-specific bandwidth regulation.  ;D

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 09, 2007, 10:55:16 AM

A friend reminded me the "The Radio Handbook for Amateurs and Experimenters", 1936 edition, ("West Coast Handbook") contains a paragraph that seems to speak to the difficulties we are having with the ARRL of late...  note the "loyalty" part.

- - - - - - - -
  Beginning with theory, only such matter is treated
as will be of practical use. No space is wasted on
matters of communication, traffic handling or to the
preaching of gospels of loyalty, to whomsoever the
loyalty is to be pledged, for the publishers of this
book are of another belief. They hold that it is the
solemn duty of a publisher to be loyal to his reader,
not for the reader to be loyal to the publisher.
- - - - - - - -

Interesting...

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 09, 2007, 11:17:53 AM

Absolutely. The League was created to serve the amateur community, but now responds only to its members (they've used this with me many times as a reason [excuse] for becoming a member again). Generally speaking, numbers would dictate that current members remain so because they are of similar minds. As for the approximately 80% of amateurs who are not members, well....



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 09, 2007, 01:16:57 PM
Publisher to be loyal to the reader ?
Gad, that sure would require a change of thinking on their part.

I wonder what went into the thinking behind Editors & Publishers for that paragraph, worded in such a deliberate fashion.

Todd they won't even respond to their subscribers, I don't know where you got that idea.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 09, 2007, 01:37:03 PM
Actually, Pete, yes, I have had conversations with nearly all the Region 2 reps that took part in the development of the revised band plan, and this came about without any documentation nor substantiation of any problems.

It was prompted by two things, and I suggest that you can make the calls yourself to confirm:

1. Paul Rinaldo expressing vague concerns about people running wider than 2.7Kc

2. Using the Region 1 IARU band plan as a basis for Region 2.

I wonder which of the two took precedence since some countries in Region 2 already have bandwidth limitations. Maybe it's a good thing they didn't use the Region 3 band plan as a basis.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 09, 2007, 01:44:17 PM
Except yelling CQ CORNTEST!! This is strongly supported and even encouraged by the League. Wouldn't surprise me if contesters make up the largest part of membership these days. After all, plenty of publicity in QST or online, and all kinds of shiny ads for the new Yaecomewood super rigs. Any real contester needs at least 5.  ::)

Darn: I only have 4 ;D

Quote
You wanna regulate something that negatively impacts every mode and every country with access to the spectrum? Regulate contesting. Unlike AM, ESSB or other modes that impact a few frequencies at any given time, contesting wipes out entire bands or large portions, preventing anyone but those who contest from using them. And it's completely intentional. How sensible is that? It would bring far greater harmony than any mode-specific bandwidth regulation.  ;D

World-wide contest frequency regulation; now there's a stretch; would probably require all amateurs in the world to have the same frequency allocations which they don't now have.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 09, 2007, 03:41:01 PM
Quote
World-wide contest frequency regulation; now there's a stretch; would probably require all amateurs in the world to have the same frequency allocations which they don't now have.


No stretch. It would effectively end contests, which is the point. :D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 09, 2007, 07:11:24 PM
Well, I received a response, if not quite an answer.  My response to his response is first:

Bill, thanks for the note.  If it the case that Division Directors ONLY
represent ARRL members to HQ, I request that this be clarified on the ARRL
website which states:

A Director's function is principally policymaking at the highest level. Each
division's Director and Vice Director represent their Division on ARRL
policy matters. If you have a question or comment about League policies,
contact your representatives at the addresses shown below.

This statement does not differentiate between members and non-members.

I take note of the unhelpful attitude and suggest that, instead of offering
me free repeater directories or antenna books to renew, that perhaps a more
conciliatory tone amongst the directors to the amateur population
(regardless of whether they may be members or not) might be a better PR tool
in garnering members who have dropped out for one reason or another.

My question remains:  If the IARU-2 proposal is essentially unenforceable,
why the support from ARRL as it is completely contrary to US regs as well in
addition to being severely inadequate with regard to any number of modes of
operation.

Best 73s - John/W3JN


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Edgar"
To: "'w3jn'"
Cc: <w9gig@arrl.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 9:28 PM
Subject: RE: A question, if I may...


> Hi John,
>
> I'd like to correct a misunderstanding in your note.  ARRL Division
> Directors are representatives of ARRL Members in their division on the
> ARRL
> Board.  My "job" is representing ARRL members within the Atlantic
> Division.
>
>
> Information that I have is that the IARU Region 2 band plan is not
> enforceable in the US as it is the FCC that governs the bands in the US.3
>
> I am not aware of any plan to eliminate or reduce space available for AM
> and
> quite frankly, I don't see the ARRL Board supporting the elimination or
> reduction of space for AM.
>
> - Bill N3LLR
>


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W2INR on November 09, 2007, 08:15:34 PM
I'm confused.

When the ARRL speaks they represent the entire amateur radio community but when spoken to or asked to explain something they only represent the members? Geez, No wonder why they only have about 20% of the hams in this country supporting them.

So the next time they put something in writing I hope they are clear that they are only representing their members not the ham radio community. Anything other than that would be fraud or misrepresentation at the least wouldn't it?

Signed -
Just another ignorant ham



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 09, 2007, 09:07:08 PM
ARRL General Information page:
ARRL is the national membership association for Amateur Radio operators.

Under ARRL By-Laws:
Number 17:
Each director shall keep himself informed as to conditions and activities in his territorial division and as to the needs and desires of the members therein in order that he may faithfully and intelligently represent the true interests of such members.

Atlantic Division web site home page:
To represent and to be a resource point for the members of the ARRL in the Atlantic Division.

IARU:
At the IARU, there is one representative for each country or territory. For the U.S., ARRL is the representative at the IARU. So, by default, since there is only one representative per country, the ARRL represents all U. S. amateurs at the IARU.

-----------------
I am not ignorant to believe that there have been no embellishments to most of the above statements at times. Likewise, I am also not that ignorant to not believe that some people may sometimes perceived themselves as being a spokesperson for any special interest group.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 09, 2007, 11:03:04 PM

I just received a further apology and clarification from the ARRL Central Division Director...

- - - - - - - - -

9 NOV 2007 - 1505 CDT

Steven B. Johnston, WD8DAS

Dear Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for writing to me twice about the recently approved IARU Region 2
Band Plan.  I have been slow in responding to your messages because of
coincidental bad timing.  Your two emails and a very few others (current
total of 24) on this issue, along with approximately 300 other unrelated
emails arrived during time period when I was planning for and recovering
from a minor outpatient surgical procedure the past two weeks.  I mention
this only to explain my slow response.

Also, when a given issue appears to be generating some controversy, I like
to wait until I have a reasonable reading on the issue and the emails
I have received.  For routine ARRL items, I try to respond within 48
hours, if I am
at home.  Now to get down to business...

I admit I should have used neutral, less inflammatory words in my
last email posting to the entire Central Division and for this
apologize to you.
However, I stand by the content of my message because:

1. The Region 2 IARU band plan is only advisory and has no effect on our
    current U.S. Amateur Radio Service HF band plan.  The primary intent of
    this document is to provide guidance to Region 2 amateur radio societies
    in countries that have little or nothing in the way of a band plan.  How
    hams in other parts of the world operate effect us and vice versa.  And
    regardless of your or my personal views on band plans, we would have
    chaos without band plan regulations.

2. There are hams in the U.S. (and other parts of the world) who fear any
    real or perceived change in the status quo.  Regardless of my poor
    description of these people, it does not change the fact that they exist
    and that a very few of them are very quick to publicly take offense.
    Those who fall into this category seldom accept all the facts about the
    issue, or issues that have caused them to speak out.  At best, they cherry
    pick the facts that support their viewpoint.  The phrase in my mind that
    best describes this situation is, "Don't confuse me with the facts because
    my mind is already made up."

The people I described in #2 certainly have the right to speak out
and I was wrong in my choice of descriptive words in my last division
email posting.

But I wish individuals who accept at face value what is being said by
these people would do their own independent fact-checking.  I'm
skeptical about a
lot of what is said and published about controversial issues, both
within and outside of amateur radio, until I have done my own
homework.  My wife says I
am too suspicious, but this characteristic contributed to my
longevity as a military and then as a civilian professional
pilot.  And in retirement, it's still my frame of reference.

This skepticism first had me opposing regulation by bandwidth when it
gained serious consideration by the ARRL board.  It took me about a
year to finally understand the rationale for it and to then make sure
that no existing HF
users would be shut out in the proposal.

The concept of regulation by bandwidth was developed via informal FCC-ARRL
staff discussions over several years before I arrived on the ARRL board in
2001.  When (orthogonal?) modulation systems started showing up that
legally allow wide-band signals in narrow (non-voice) HF sub-bands,
work on a band- width regulation proposal was formalized by board
resolution about 18 months after my arrival.  I believe Winlink 2000
is the first operating mode to use this modulation system.

With the withdrawal of the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal
this past February, this situation will get worse.  The only real
impediment to further Winlink 2000 use is the very high cost of the
proprietary modem.  Eventually, this cost will come down.  I'm not
opposed to any operating mode including Winlink 2000.  But I'm
opposed to it's use in our narrow-band sub-bands.
Under our current Part 97 Regulations, it is legal there.

I seriously doubt if another regulation by bandwidth proposal will be put
forth by the ARRL board in the near future.  We failed to educate the
U.S. amateur radio community about the history of and rationale for
our first proposal, and to make sure nearly everyone understood how
it would work.  The ARRL board of directors has to do it's homework
if we want to have regulation by bandwidth accepted by the U.S.
amateur radio community.

I support amateur radio HF regulation by bandwidth.  However, I will
not support an effort to rush another proposal to the FCC.  I have no idea how
long this educational process will take.  But I currently believe
anything shorter than two years from 1 JAN 2008 will fail.

- George R. Isely, W9GIG
   ARRL Central Div. Director
   St. Charles, IL

   w9gig@arrl.org


- - - - - - - - -





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 09, 2007, 11:52:46 PM

Mr Isely -

Thank you for your message and apology.  I hope you are feeling better...

I must continue to disagree with your contention that IARU Region 2 bandplan does not apply to the United States, and is not important to us.   The first paragraph of the plan itself defines its purpose:  Member Societies (such as ARRL) are to work for its incorporation into authority (such as FCC) regulations.   And did not ARRL vote in support of that wording?   So I must conclude that the ARRL must support the eventual incorporation of this plan into the FCC rules.  So it is important, after all...

If it is really meaningless to U.S. amateurs, as you contend, then why do you support it, and hope that it will help us deal with new digital modes?   Why is ARRL spending thousands of dollars to attend the IARU meetings and participate in the drafting of these changes, if it is of no consequence to us?

ARRL represents our country in the IARU, so as a member of ARRL I thought I would have a voice in this process, or at least have been informed.  Clearly I was wrong.   It was done behind the scenes without consulting the membership in any way, and member efforts to to discuss the matter have been viewed as ignorant interference. 

As far as I can discern, the ARRL not only doesn't care about the members' views on this issue, the League officials are deliberately trying to avoid the discussion.  I've not seen any announcement of the IARU Region 2 bandplan changes in QST, on the ARRL website, the ARRL-Letter, or elsewhere.  I've not seen any mention of the role ARRL is taking in this policy process either.   

In your message you stated that we needn't expect a further attempt by the ARRL to get bandwidth controls into FCC rules for at least two years - not until the League has had a chance to "educate" the members and other amateurs on the matter.

Mr. Isley, I think you're a bit confused as to the role of the League, and that of a Director.  Have you read the Articles of Association and By-Laws?    Shouldn't the views of the members be your first priority in the making of policy, rather than the last?  Or do you really think that you and the League officials are to set the course and we just have to follow along, sometimes with a bit of "education" to set us straight?

Whatever happened to the slogan "Of, by, and for the amateur?

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 10, 2007, 12:14:15 AM

...As far as I can discern, the ARRL not only doesn't care about the members' views on this issue, the League officials are deliberately trying to avoid the discussion.  I've not seen any announcement of the IARU Region 2 bandplan changes in QST, on the ARRL website, the ARRL-Letter, or elsewhere.  I've not seen any mention of the role ARRL is taking in this policy process either.   

Steve WD8DAS

ARRL Letter, September 21, 2007:
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined
technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF
matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico
City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary
adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region
2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008.
The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with
regional differences taken into account;
steps were taken to try to
reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing
an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention
of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was
approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive
Committee.

NOTE: The ARRL Letter now distributes to more than 66,000 ARRL members each Friday


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 10, 2007, 12:18:57 AM

Interesting... I double-checked - I did not receive that ARRL Letter, and it did not turn up back when I searched the ARRL website for mentions of this subject.  I'm glad to see this... but note that it is after the fact, not before.  Members had no opportunity to voice any opinion before it was adopted. 

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 10, 2007, 12:24:26 AM

Interesting... I double-checked - I did not receive that ARRL Letter, and it did not turn up back when I searched the ARRL website for mentions of this subject.  I'm glad to see this... but note that it is after the fact, not before.  Members had no opportunity to voice any opinion before it was adopted. 

Steve WD8DAS



Even if they did, ARRL has one vote. If they had the opportunity to poll every member, and every member said no, and the ARRL said no in the voting process, the revised band plan still would have been approved. One nay vote wasn't going to kill this plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 10, 2007, 07:41:47 AM
C'mon, Pete, you really can't be serious if your implication is that because the ARRL has but one vote, they have to accept everything as a fait accompli????

As far as I know the US is the only place where this regulation by bandwidth nonsense has been tried - and who, might I ask, did the proposal come from?  Do you REALLY think that the ARRL opposed this proposal?  On the face of it, the evidence appears to be quite the opposite.

One good thing has come out of this:  we now know that apparently the ARRL plans to revisit its failed BW proposal to the FCC.  It's so damn clear - if only we at HQ could make you ignorant AMers with your "cherished mode" understand that!!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 10, 2007, 09:29:41 AM
Steve, nice response to the half-hearted "apology" from Isley.

As a pilot, he should know that putting blinders on, as he continues to do, will eventually cause him to fly it right into the ground.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W1VD on November 10, 2007, 09:49:43 AM
It's clear from Isley's letter that the ARRL intends to pursue regulation by bandwidth, therefore it's no surprise that they didn't vote against the IARU bandplan. 

What we need is a strong organization (NRA and AOPA come to mind) that actually represents US amateur radio operators. With only 20% of amateurs as members the ARRL only speaks for the few...and even then not all of the members (I'm a life member) are on board with the direction of the ARRL. A new organization with > 20% of amateurs as members would have a louder voice than the ARRL...right? Where do I send my check?

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 10, 2007, 10:45:18 AM
I don't favor creating another organization to represent licensees.

I am passionately in favor of getting rid of the current crop of administrators on paid staff in Newington.

The club's volunteer leadership has shown signs of having a spine recently, and  I believe it will be a lot easier to nurture the growth of backbone to take hold of the paid staff, and provide direction to them based on subscriber input.

The problem, as I see it, is that the paid staff are so entrenched, and have such insulation against outside direction, that they feel emboldened to take the kind of cowboy steps they keep getting spanked about.

But the whole discussion of League politics can occupy a separate thread, and maybe we should start a fresh one using this damn IARU cowboy plan as a foundation.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 10, 2007, 12:20:21 PM
C'mon, Pete, you really can't be serious if your implication is that because the ARRL has but one vote, they have to accept everything as a fait accompli????

As far as I know the US is the only place where this regulation by bandwidth nonsense has been tried - and who, might I ask, did the proposal come from?  Do you REALLY think that the ARRL opposed this proposal?  On the face of it, the evidence appears to be quite the opposite.

One good thing has come out of this:  we now know that apparently the ARRL plans to revisit its failed BW proposal to the FCC.  It's so damn clear - if only we at HQ could make you ignorant AMers with your "cherished mode" understand that!!

Bandwidth Regulations for Bermuda:
Item 39 of their rules and regulations:
http://www.bermudashorts.bm/rsb/class3r.htm#Amateur_station_licence_or_permit_ (http://www.bermudashorts.bm/rsb/class3r.htm#Amateur_station_licence_or_permit_)

Also, you said: "we at HQ could make you ignorant AMers"
But, he(ARRL Director) really said: "very few ignorant people"


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W2INR on November 10, 2007, 12:35:22 PM
Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 10, 2007, 12:54:17 PM
OK, My 2 cenyt worth,

I just posted this via the AMradio reflector too, after I read the reply Steve, WD8DAS, got from George Isley, W9GIG:

Quote
Why am I not surprised?  It's all about WINLINK isn't it?  Their precious WINLINK that uses formats that many claim are encrypted (which is illegal in Amateur radio), and that has caused so much ire amongst amateurs, due to it's users firing up and wiping out QSOs already in progress (I experienced this firsthand last year with an 80m Hellschreiber net I used to run - several weeks worth PACTOR QRM firing up in the middle of the net, trashing it, forced us to QSY).  All you have to do is go to the "zed" to find umpteen "I hate WINLINK" threads. WINLINK is being pushed by sailing websites as a cheap way to get around spending money to have the Sailmail e-mail sevice from your boat.  One site even went so far as to say that since amateur licenses have never been easier to get, go get your ham license, and use WINLINK, saving on the Sailmail cost.  Of course "you have to make room for it." So, just get rid if that obsolete "Ancient Modulation."  The worst part of it, is that many hams say that they wonder "why anybody would want to use such an obsolete mode as AM". I read this comment from a ham who sent it to Sherm, KB9Qs blog/e-mail that goes out to numerous hams.  Sherm also included George, W9GIG's scathing e-mail we've
all seen, in his blog. I ended up sending a rather long e-mail to Sherm yesterday, stating why some of us sent out e-mails to the ARRL and IARU, voicing our concern over the new IARU band plan.  In the e-mail, I stated that there was plenty of room nowadays for AM, and that contrary to being an ancient throwback mode, with people only intrested in obsolete radio, many of AM's supporters were very tech savvy (heck some of us are electronics tech, engineers, etc.).  I also stated the same reasons I stated in my e-mail to the IARU about the new band plan (I don't belong to the ARRL anymore, so I really had no right to send them an e-mail about the band
plan), that were also used by many of you in your e-mails:

1.  It could potentially block many new modes that are wider than SSB bandwidth.
2.  It goes against present AM operating practices.
3.  ESSB wouldn't even be allowed.
4.  Even though it wouldn't be the law, the band plan could cause conflict between hams who don't follow it, and those who would insist that it should be treated like the law.
5.  I did not openly state, but implied that the band plan might be used as a back door to start up Regulation by Bandwidth (ala RM-11304 [which I sent my comments to the FCC, about]) again.

Now it looks like the ARRL is trying to push WINLINK once again.


I tell you people, they hate AM, and the LOVE Winlink.  You read Isley's response. He purposely cites WINLINK 2000 time and time again.  And states how the only thing keeping from becoming more popular, is the cost of the modem. You've gotta be kidding!  Is the ARRL so blind to all of the "I hate WINLINK" feelings that are out there?  Just go to the "zed", and you'll find umpteen different threads in this vein.  Yep, it sure looks like they're pushing for more regulation by bandwidth.

73,
Elllen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 10, 2007, 12:58:36 PM
Quote
9 NOV 2007 - 1505 CDT

Steven B. Johnston, WD8DAS

Dear Mr. Johnston,

Thank you for writing to me twice about the recently approved IARU Region 2
Band Plan.  I have been slow in responding to your messages because of
coincidental bad timing.  Your two emails and a very few others (current
total of 24) on this issue, along with approximately 300 other unrelated
emails arrived during time period when I was planning for and recovering
from a minor outpatient surgical procedure the past two weeks.  I mention
this only to explain my slow response.


But you had enough time to compose a condescending and inflammatory rant to all the Central Division members? Sounds like 'the dog ate my homework' excuse. How pathetic.


Quote
Also, when a given issue appears to be generating some controversy, I like
to wait until I have a reasonable reading on the issue and the emails
I have received.  For routine ARRL items, I try to respond within 48
hours, if I am
at home.  Now to get down to business...


Did you wait before putting out your condescending and inflammatory rant to all the Central Division members? This is another pathetic attempt to weasel out of your responsibility.


Quote
I admit I should have used neutral, less inflammatory words in my
last email posting to the entire Central Division and for this
apologize to you.

Why not apologize to everyone, since you clearly offended more than one person?


Quote
However, I stand by the content of my message because:

1. The Region 2 IARU band plan is only advisory and has no effect on our
    current U.S. Amateur Radio Service HF band plan.  The primary intent of
    this document is to provide guidance to Region 2 amateur radio societies
    in countries that have little or nothing in the way of a band plan.  How
    hams in other parts of the world operate effect us and vice versa.  And
    regardless of your or my personal views on band plans, we would have
    chaos without band plan regulations.

 


Please explain. What is a band plan regulation? Either the IARU band plan is voluntary, or it is a regulation. You seem more than a little confused. Yet, it is "these people" who are ignorant.


Quote

2. There are hams in the U.S. (and other parts of the world) who fear any
    real or perceived change in the status quo.  Regardless of my poor
    description of these people, it does not change the fact that they exist
    and that a very few of them are very quick to publicly take offense.
    Those who fall into this category seldom accept all the facts about the
    issue, or issues that have caused them to speak out.  At best, they cherry
    pick the facts that support their viewpoint.  The phrase in my mind that
    best describes this situation is, "Don't confuse me with the facts because
    my mind is already made up."


This sounds like a self description. You characterized a group of people (although the actual people, the size and diversity are all undefined by you) without knowing anything about them.


Quote
The people I described in #2 certainly have the right to speak out
and I was wrong in my choice of descriptive words in my last division
email posting.

But I wish individuals who accept at face value what is being said by
these people would do their own independent fact-checking.  I'm
skeptical about a
lot of what is said and published about controversial issues, both
within and outside of amateur radio, until I have done my own
homework.  My wife says I
am too suspicious, but this characteristic contributed to my
longevity as a military and then as a civilian professional
pilot.  And in retirement, it's still my frame of reference.

This skepticism first had me opposing regulation by bandwidth when it
gained serious consideration by the ARRL board.  It took me about a
year to finally understand the rationale for it and to then make sure
that no existing HF
users would be shut out in the proposal.


So, it's perfectly fine for you to be skeptical. You seem to wear it as a badge of honor. But if others are skeptical, especially of the ARRL, they are branded  "ignorant people", "gullible, biased, have an axe to grind" and "these people." The utter hypocrisy of your position is only exceeded by your arrogance.



Quote
The concept of regulation by bandwidth was developed via informal FCC-ARRL
staff discussions over several years before I arrived on the ARRL board in
2001.  



And the ignorant people you speak of are aware of the ARRL's long standing approach to bandwidth regulation. Thus, the skepticism regarding bandwidth limitations seen elsewhere when the ARRL is involved. I'm sure this is a nuance a superior mind such as yours would have surely observed. After all, you were both a military and civilian pilot!


Quote
When (orthogonal?) modulation systems started showing up that
legally allow wide-band signals in narrow (non-voice) HF sub-bands,
work on a band- width regulation proposal was formalized by board
resolution about 18 months after my arrival.  I believe Winlink 2000
is the first operating mode to use this modulation system.


You've just verified your technical incompetence.


Quote
With the withdrawal of the ARRL's regulation by bandwidth proposal
this past February, this situation will get worse.  The only real
impediment to further Winlink 2000 use is the very high cost of the
proprietary modem.  Eventually, this cost will come down.  I'm not
opposed to any operating mode including Winlink 2000.  But I'm
opposed to it's use in our narrow-band sub-bands.
Under our current Part 97 Regulations, it is legal there.


This is a hackneyed argument that was thoroughly discredited during the FCC proposal and comment process. When will you and the rest of the ARRL either come up with a better one or drop your misguided regulation by bandwidth dogma?

From the FCC--

Quote
"We conclude that Petitioners' request for an amendment of our rules is inconsistent with the Commission's objective of encouraging the experimental aspects of amateur radio service. The Petition also fails to demonstrate that a deviation from the Commission's longstanding practice of allowing operating flexibility within the amateur service community is either warranted or necessary. In this regard, we note that most operators use the amateur service spectrum in a manner consistent with the basic purpose of the amateur service." Source: FCC-DA-04-3661A1

==


Quote
I seriously doubt if another regulation by bandwidth proposal will be put
forth by the ARRL board in the near future.  We failed to educate the
U.S. amateur radio community about the history of and rationale for
our first proposal, and to make sure nearly everyone understood how
it would work.  The ARRL board of directors has to do it's homework
if we want to have regulation by bandwidth accepted by the U.S.
amateur radio community.



Once educated completely, the concept was soundly rejected. The problem is not one of education (although it seems a theme of yours - ignorant people), but one of a bad idea on the part of the ARRL.


Quote
I support amateur radio HF regulation by bandwidth.  



And thus, the skepticism by those who don't.


Quote
However, I will
not support an effort to rush another proposal to the FCC.  I have no idea how
long this educational process will take.  But I currently believe
anything shorter than two years from 1 JAN 2008 will fail.

- George R. Isely, W9GIG
   ARRL Central Div. Director

   St. Charles, IL

   w9gig@arrl.org


Instead, you will support bandwidth limitations within the IARU band plans as future leverage for FCC regulation. It would appear you are unwilling or unable to engage in a legitimate debate with those who oppose regulation by bandwidth. Your resort to name calling and the general dismissal of "these people" is stark proof.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 10, 2007, 01:08:25 PM
Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

FCC Regulations are the law of the land in the U.S. not a voluntary Region 2 band plan. My point: The Region 2 band plan is voluntary; it has no power of authority for U. S. amateurs; likewise, it has no power in any other country either. The current ITU conference has no plans on their agenda to pursue mandatory regulation by bandwidth in countries where they don't exist now.

Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 10, 2007, 01:09:49 PM
Steve did you send that off ?

What's curious is that George ("Dick" as he is known to his comrades) is among the volunteer Division Directors who were unwilling to ask their constituents' opinion in the survey that ARRL's leadership commissioned a few months ago.

This tells me he's more inclined to protect the status quo, and parrot the dogma handed to him by paid staff Paul Rinaldo, Dave Sumner, et. al.

Sumner, for his part, has emailed me that he does not agree with "some" of the language Isley has used in his Nov. 7 message to subscribers in his zone.
But, Sumner did not address my request that he tell his subordinate Rinaldo to endorse the revisions needed in the Region 2 plan.

I don't see a direct connection between Rinaldo's favoring WinLink and his opposition to AM.  What seems more likely is that in order to make automated telemetry systems such as WinLink acceptable to U.S. licensees, he has to market them as being at least as narrow as SSB, so that they can be situated among phone QSOs on that mode as intended.

AM, and the bandwidth ordinarily associated with the mode, is an inconvenient reality Rinaldo has tried to ignore in both his threatened bandwidth scheme to the FCC, and now with his suggestion of a 2.7Kc specification to the other Region 2 delegates of the IARU.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 10, 2007, 01:10:12 PM
All the more reason to fight it now.


Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

FCC Regulations are the law of the land in the U.S. not a voluntary Region 2 band plan. My point: The Region 2 band plan is voluntary; it has no power of authority for U. S. amateurs; likewise, it has no power in any other country either. The current ITU conference has no plans on their agenda to pursue mandatory regulation by bandwidth in countries where they don't exist now.

Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 10, 2007, 01:29:42 PM
^^^  And fight every quasi-official document that proposes same to the ITU or any other official body.


Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".


^^  And there you have it.  That, coupled with Isley's professed support of regulation by bandwidth, certainly could lead one to believe that this IARU-2 proposal is an attempt to get a foot in the door with the FCC.  The louder the ARRL officials bleat that it's unenforceable, the more I believe that this whole thing has ulterior motives.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: K6JEK on November 10, 2007, 01:32:26 PM
QST p. 74 this month has but that same brief statement about the band plan, "A new Region 2 band plan was adopted ..."   I expected at least a description of the band plan and a statement about its relevance.    They really do seem to be  taking a fly-under-the-radar approach.

I managed to get a few people out here fired up. They corresponded with Sumner, Rinaldo, Stafford, and Harrison. The answers are always "don't worry about it."  The guys I got going were mollified by these exchanges.  I was not.  I kept asking what the ARRL position is and never did get any answer.

They all did say this, though:  ARRL policy is set by the Board of Directors (http://www.arrl.org/divisions/ )  The one guy who did not respond to my inquiries was the Pacific Division Director, Bob Vallio, W6RGG.

I'm keeping at it.   I hope the rest of you are too.

Jon 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 10, 2007, 01:34:35 PM
Quote
I believe that this whole thing has ulterior motives
.

Indeed, what is in it for those pushing it ?

They already have repeatedly said the plan does not have the force of law, does not apply to U.S. licensees, so what if it is at odds with FCC Part 97.

What's left ?

Onetime ARRL president Larry Price said in his letter published on the ITU website* that the intent is to eliminate footnotes among Regions 1, 2 and 3.

Some country footnotes provide for alternative or additional allocations in some of these frequency bands. The amateur radio community seeks increased harmonization of frequency allocations, through the reduction and avoidance of country footnotes that reduce the availability of bands that are allocated internationally to radio amateurs.


AM, come January, joins the footnotes in the Region 2 IARU plan. It is anyone's guess whether Price's use of the word "footnotes" is intended to apply to regulatory discrepancies, IARU exceptions, or both.  Clearly he envisions footnotes as something to discourage.

*http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/display.asp?lang=en&year=2007&issue=08&ipage=amateur-radio&ext=html


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 10, 2007, 01:53:15 PM
Quote
There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".

I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.

I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.


Some more funny stuff from George. Now remember, this is the guy who  says, "There have been, and apparently always will be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and considering amateur radio regulations." And he claims he will "keep working to spread the truth." Yet, he doesn't even have a firm grasp on the current FCC regulations (Part 97).

He speaks of "the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC Amateur Radio Service band plan." I find no such footnotes anywhere in Part 97. The relevant sections in Part 97 are 97.305(c) and the footnotes therein that reference the emission standards in 97.307(f). AM is not directly referenced anywhere in 97.307 or the so called footnotes of 97.307(c), other than the A3E reference in paragraph 2 which is dealing with the bandwidth of NON-PHONE emissions!

Yet, this guy wants to claim others are ignorant. Incredible! AMers live by 97.307 (a) through(e) with (a) being the only portion relevant to non-spurious or out of band emissions.

Quote
No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

It's rather simple and no footnotes, asterisks or special exemptions are involved.

To those Central Division readers that are ARRL members out there, do you want this guy representing you?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 10, 2007, 03:56:27 PM
You did not answer the question Gary asked.

Quote
Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

So what? Some countries have power limits different than the US. Some have different testing requirements. Some countries have no amateur radio. All of which is irrelevant to what we have or do in the USA.


Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

FCC Regulations are the law of the land in the U.S. not a voluntary Region 2 band plan. My point: The Region 2 band plan is voluntary; it has no power of authority for U. S. amateurs; likewise, it has no power in any other country either. The current ITU conference has no plans on their agenda to pursue mandatory regulation by bandwidth in countries where they don't exist now.

Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 10, 2007, 04:48:15 PM
You did not answer the question Gary asked.

Quote
Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

So what? Some countries have power limits different than the US. Some have different testing requirements. Some countries have no amateur radio. All of which is irrelevant to what we have or do in the USA.

Actually, you don't have to change any of your AM operating habits or equipment come 1/1/08 since it's a voluntary Region 2 band plan. My point in the previous post was that there are already bandwidth restrictions in some Region 2 countries. I think this also answer's JN's response a second time. And, if you read my 2nd paragraph in the previous post(or in the quote below), you might understand my thinking.

If you review my comments on the NPRM for RM-11306, you will read that I supported parts of the ARRL's proposal on regulation by bandwidth, including 9KHz bandwidth for AM in the phone bands, but not the roving semi-automatic robots that could operate anywhere in an amateur band. I believe there was one other item I was in disagreement with in their proposal, but can't remember what it was.


Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

Regulation by bandwidth already exists in some countries including Region 2.

FCC Regulations are the law of the land in the U.S. not a voluntary Region 2 band plan. My point: The Region 2 band plan is voluntary; it has no power of authority for U. S. amateurs; likewise, it has no power in any other country either. The current ITU conference has no plans on their agenda to pursue mandatory regulation by bandwidth in countries where they don't exist now.

Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 10, 2007, 06:13:07 PM

>Steve did you send that off ?

Yes, early today I sent my reply message to Isley.  Then later I "condensed" a lot of my previous work into a single letter on this issue and submitted it to QST as a Correspondence or Op-Ed piece. 

Steve WD8DAS


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 10, 2007, 06:26:20 PM
And my point is so what? Regs in other countries do not make a legitimate argument (either for or against) for the content of either voluntary band plans or mandatory regulations. They are irrelevant.




 My point in the previous post was that there are already bandwidth restrictions in some Region 2 countries.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 11, 2007, 10:03:56 AM
One of the things that I pointed out to Paul, WA3VJB, was the little disclaimer at the bottom of the 1998 IARU Band Plan:
 ".....These bandplans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except
in some countries in which the bandplans are written into the national
regulations. The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to
the IARU bandplans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to
be this way. The plans are prepared in a democratic way with input from any
country's member society. The plans are discussed, modified and voted upon
at IARU Regional General Assemblies with each country (large or small)
having only one vote. If an individual or group is not satisfied with the
bandplans as they are and has a suggestion for improvement then he should
submit it, with as much documentation as possible, to his IARU member
society......"

This little footnote was subtly absent from the one presented to take effect in 2008. Given the recent mistrust of the ARRgghhL, one would be led to believe that there are certainly alterior motives involved. There hasn't been any justification by the (be)League(d) as to why spend so much time, money and effort into a plan if it doesn't have any kind of weight.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 11, 2007, 10:43:47 AM
It's interesting to see the IARU claims to be open about their proceeding with
Quote
The plans are prepared in a democratic way with input from any country's member society.


but the ARRL does not do the same. I've never received on correspondence from the ARRL on this issue. Why?


It's also amusing to hear all those who trumpet that the band plan is voluntary but leave out this tidbit.

Quote
The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to the IARU bandplans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to be this way.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 11, 2007, 01:19:12 PM
Quote
There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.

We must not forget that there are other nations in Region 2 besides the US and Canada.  Just as we are presently enjoying some international AM traffic with a couple of European countries, it would not be in our interests to lose that option with other countries in the Americas.  This is of particular significance given that at international radio conferences, each country, regardless of its population, has one vote that carries equal weight with the votes of each of the other countries.  The only way we will ever have any international support of AM by other governments is for there to be interest in AM by the amateurs in those countries.

A good example of this is the regulations in Bermuda that restrict all transmissions to 3 kHz bandwidth.  I doubt that there are more than a few dozen licensed hams in the entire country.  I suspect that rule got into their regulations by default, simply because none of the present licensees had any interest in AM, and their regulations likely were also influenced by collaboration with stateside DX'ers and contesters who might wish to temporarily operate from there, few of whom would have any kind of positive attitude towards AM.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: AB5S on November 13, 2007, 06:42:41 AM
Politicos hate it when people undermine them.
Perhaps a few well-crafted letters to the FCC,
pointing out how the ARRL has done this
sneeky end-around, might cause them to
dig in their heels and say: "No way!"


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 13, 2007, 06:55:43 AM
Yes indeed.

Direct contact among concerned licensees and the FCC is what doomed the failed bandwidth petition from the club in Newington.

You by now will have received an email with a suggested letter to friendlies we have encountered at the IARU, where this band plan was developed.

Please consider the points raised and the action suggested.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 13, 2007, 08:23:33 AM
All of you are under house arrest (HI).

The last time I checked the IARU websites, there still was no posting of the IARU 2 Conference Resolutions.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Rob K2CU on November 13, 2007, 09:30:57 AM
HI All!

I think it is clearly a matter of attacking the mode and not the bandwidth. I have measured many an SSB station at way over the 2.5 KHz they claim to limit themselves to. I am more concerned that our hobby's main mouthpiece, the ARRL, has taken a position that is clearly opposite the current trend in mode of operation. Consider this: Twenty years, or so, ago new rigs were generally void of AM mode. Now, almost all, even SDR radios have it. Sure, we got screwed in the power output sham, but that has not stopped the spirit of AMers. Also consider that technology innovation such as Class E,  has been in the AM mode, not SSB. IF anyone else is involved with mentoring new hams,  you know that it is quite easy to build a low power AM rig, and have it understood as to how it works than to tell your student, "Save your money and buy an SSB rig."

or, am I just too cynical about the dumbing down of the hobby we all love?

ras -K2CU


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: AB5S on November 13, 2007, 10:42:30 AM
We should also remember that the ARRL has a history,
going back to the WWII Surplus Radios era,
of siding with new-equipment sellers and against
anyone using "old" equipment.  This is understandable,
since new-equipment sellers pay the bills at ARRL,
but this time I think they've been "too clever by half,"
thinking that screwing the BA AM community would please
their masters at Icom and Kenwood.  I don't think they
are going to get the mileage out of that attitude
this time which they did in the past.
It's too easy, with the new tech available,
to include AM in a "new" rig, so AM users
are not the threat which they were falsely
perceived to be in the past.
73 AB5S


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K7NCR on November 13, 2007, 11:20:44 AM
Hi!
I did receive Paul's E-mail. I hope everyone takes time to send the letter or a version of it along to the appropriate parties. I also intend to bring it up at our local club meeting this Thur. I may be able to get a few more interested.
Norm


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 13, 2007, 11:35:14 AM
I've never received on correspondence from the ARRL on this issue. Why?

Steve, of all people they could have asked, you are the webmaster of the ARRL's AM page.

I wonder if you would get in trouble if you were to use your position to now use that page as a vehicle for some of these deliberations now underway in the aftermath of the oversight against AM at the IARU activity in Brazil.

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/am.html (http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/am.html)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 13, 2007, 12:14:40 PM
It's also amusing to hear all those who trumpet that the band plan is voluntary but leave out this tidbit.

Quote
The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to the IARU bandplans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to be this way.


Which is exactly what concerns me. Why, if it has no bearing, would you subject your group/committee/union to objections and possible scorn and ridicule over such restrictive language? Because this, like the AM 'Exception' the ARRL promoted before, is an excellent way to get a foot in the door and prove or provide some need or credibility.

"But all of the other countries are abiding by these guidelines, why shouldn't the USA?"



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: AB5S on November 13, 2007, 01:40:12 PM
On forwarding the email received:
It will be much more effective if you
 re-write the letter in your own words,
and if you send a copy to each person on the list
individually.  "Form Letter" forwards addressed to
multiple people get little respect.
Many email programs filter-out such mail.
Besides- I don't think they'll cotton to
"Big, little and small" as definitions.  Too vague, IMHO.
You know- I wouldn't mind a bandwidth vs. mode
specification; it would allow for experimentation.
But not at the restrictive level of 2.7 KC. 
6 or even 9 makes more sense.
73 Dave S.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 13, 2007, 01:55:00 PM
OH yes, I hope folks will just take those as talking points, but hey, if they get multiple sendouts that's okay too, since it shows the level of concern. I agree that some spam filters will scrape off an email with too many cc's, but from the traffic I've been seeing in response, the cc list among IARU players is long and varied.

On the enumerated bandwidth, the pitfall of ANY hard number is the need to combine it with a definition. John, W3JN pointed this out quite well in his rebuttal to the pithy sendout from Isely:
Quote
one of the reasons the ARRL regulation-by-bandwidth proposal failed was that bandwidth was never strictly defined, nor was any method of measuring same defined.  Would bandwidth be measured at the -3dB points?  -6dB points?  -30 dB points?  How, and with what instrument that is readily available to most amateurs?  Although I have 22 years of experience as an RF engineer, I must tell you that measuring the bandwidth - even when that term is strictly defined - is no easy task on non-repetitive signals such as voice.

The only practical bandwidth-based segregation is what we already have, large for phone, medium for other stuff, and narrow for CW.

Sure, an adjective is softer than a number, but it's just as vague to toss a specified bandwidth out there without a reference to measure compliance.

I got the idea of substituting footprint instead of numbers from among the alternatives we have been discussing on here.

I since have gotten emails from Dave Sumner and Larry Price, functionaries at the IARU who are either present or former ARRL administrators.  Price wrote a somewhat rambling article for the International Telecommunications Union, in which he expressed his opposition to "footnotes."

A footnote is how the ARRL's representatives tried to treat AM in their failed bandwidth petition to the FCC, later withdrawn, and it is the same tactic used in early versions of the IARU's voluntary band plan taking effect in January.

(http://www.itu.int//itunews/images/2007/08/amateur-radio-1.jpg)
Onetime ARRL president Larry Price, W4RA, now president of the IARU

In his ITU article, Price wrote, in part:
Quote
The amateur radio community seeks increased harmonization of frequency allocations, through the reduction and avoidance of country footnotes that reduce the availability of bands that are allocated internationally to radio amateurs.

In effect, Price equates the concept of footnotes with reduced availability of bands to licensees.  This is what would happen if AM were relegated to the status of a footnote in the voluntary IARU Region 2 Band Plan, which is why it is a suitable reference in expressions of concern to these groups.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 13, 2007, 03:17:10 PM
Quote
But not at the restrictive level of 2.7 KC. 
6 or even 9 makes more sense.


Why have any number when the current reg works just fine?

Quote
97.307 (a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K7NCR on November 13, 2007, 07:59:06 PM
Here is the first reply from my e-mailing of the objection letter:

Norm,

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns with regard to the band plan adopted recently by the member-societies of IARU Region 2. You sent your message to a number of individuals; because the ARRL is the representative organization in the IARU for radio amateurs of the United States , I am replying on their behalf.

IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU member-societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory authority. On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

The new IARU Region 2 band plan was developed by delegates to the Region 2 Conference from a number of countries. It does not align in every respect either with the FCC rules or with operating patterns followed by US amateurs. Unlike the United States , most countries do not have regulations setting out subbands for different types of emission. Even in the US the FCC rules do not provide much detail with regard to frequency use. As FCC amateur licensees we are obliged to cooperate with one another in selecting transmitting channels and making the most effective use of amateur service frequencies, and to follow good engineering and good amateur practice.

Your message objects to the Region 2 band plan for “suggesting limits that are more severe than regulations from the governments in the region.” However, the band plan does not contain “limits.” As voluntary guidelines the band plan cannot by definition be “more severe” than regulations. And finally, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.

Your message refers to IARU President Larry Price as wishing “to discourage footnotes among the various regional plans he oversees.” First, the IARU President does not “oversee” regional band plans. Each regional plan is developed by the member-societies of that region, in accordance with the constitution, bylaws and rules of the regional organization. The regional organizations are autonomous entities and do not answer to the IARU President. Second, Mr. Price’s observation with regard to footnotes had nothing whatsoever to do with IARU band plans. Footnotes are not by their nature either good or bad; it depends on what they say. Mr. Price’s observation had to do specifically with footnotes in the ITU Table of Frequency Allocations that prohibit amateur operation, or authorize sharing by additional services, in certain countries in certain parts of the bands that are allocated in the ITU Table to the amateur service. One of the goals of the IARU is to minimize such footnotes. On the other hand, there are other footnotes to the ITU Table that are extremely beneficial to Amateur Radio, such as the ones permitting amateur-satellite operation. In any case this is totally unrelated to IARU band planning activities, which are internal to the amateur service and to each regional IARU organization and have nothing whatever to do with the ITU.

I hope this has reassured you that nothing will happen on January 1 that will in any way affect your use of AM. We are always seeking ways to improve the process of revision of the IARU Region 2 band plan and the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2, are always open to member input on future revisions that ARRL delegates may take to future Region 2 Conferences. I encourage you to communicate with the Division Director in your ARRL Division.

Sincere 73,

Joel Harrison, W5ZN

ARRL President

Notice I'm "encouraged to communicate with the division director in my ARRL division". I sent him a copy of the letter also, we'll see what his response is.
Norm K7NCR


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 13, 2007, 08:37:01 PM
Norm, do you interpret Harrison's remarks as including a presumption U.S. ham will not want to comply with the IARU Plan? How counterproductive that seems to be, and disrespectful of the IARU's work.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K4QE on November 13, 2007, 09:01:33 PM
Mr. Harrison,

The ARRL, by virtue of being the IARU's representative member society for the United States in ITU Region 2, is OBLIGATED to consider comments (regarding issues that will be discussed at IARU conferences) from ALL radio amateurs in the US without discrimination against non-ARRL members.

If the ARRL does not fulfill that obligation, then it cannot claim to represent the US ham population.

It's that simple.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed - N3LHB on November 13, 2007, 10:33:14 PM
Here's the reply to my first objection email... not very reassuring... seems like a form mail response...

Ed,

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns with regard to the band plan adopted recently by the member-societies of IARU Region 2. You sent your message to a number of individuals; because the ARRL is the representative organization in the IARU for radio amateurs of the United States, I am replying on their behalf.

IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU member-societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory authority. On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

The new IARU Region 2 band plan was developed by delegates to the Region 2 Conference from a number of countries. It does not align in every respect either with the FCC rules or with operating patterns followed by US amateurs. Unlike the United States, most countries do not have regulations setting out subbands for different types of emission. Even in the US the FCC rules do not provide much detail with regard to frequency use. As FCC amateur licensees we are obliged to cooperate with one another in selecting transmitting channels and making the most effective use of amateur service frequencies, and to follow good engineering and good amateur practice.

Your message objects to the Region 2 band plan for “suggesting limits that are more severe than regulations from the governments in the region.” However, the band plan does not contain “limits.” As voluntary guidelines the band plan cannot by definition be “more severe” than regulations. And finally, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.

Your message refers to IARU President Larry Price as wishing “to discourage footnotes among the various regional plans he oversees.” First, the IARU President does not “oversee” regional band plans. Each regional plan is developed by the member-societies of that region, in accordance with the constitution, bylaws and rules of the regional organization. The regional organizations are autonomous entities and do not answer to the IARU President. Second, Mr. Price’s observation with regard to footnotes had nothing whatsoever to do with IARU band plans. Footnotes are not by their nature either good or bad; it depends on what they say. Mr. Price’s observation had to do specifically with footnotes in the ITU Table of Frequency Allocations that prohibit amateur operation, or authorize sharing by additional services, in certain countries in certain parts of the bands that are allocated in the ITU Table to the amateur service. One of the goals of the IARU is to minimize such footnotes. On the other hand, there are other footnotes to the ITU Table that are extremely beneficial to Amateur Radio, such as the ones permitting amateur-satellite operation. In any case this is totally unrelated to IARU band planning activities, which are internal to the amateur service and to each regional IARU organization and have nothing whatever to do with the ITU.

I hope this has reassured you that nothing will happen on January 1 that will in any way affect your use of AM. We are always seeking ways to improve the process of revision of the IARU Region 2 band plan and the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2, are always open to member input on future revisions that ARRL delegates may take to future Region 2 Conferences. I encourage you to communicate with the Division Director in your ARRL Division.

Sincere 73,

Joel Harrison, W5ZN

ARRL President




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 13, 2007, 11:50:17 PM

The ARRL President wrote:

>I hope this has reassured you that nothing will
>happen on January 1 that will in any way affect your use of AM.

There, there, little ones, no need to worry your little heads over the scary old bandplan.  It won't get you...

How disrespectful.  We offer reasoned arguments and they respond like we are frightened children.  I'm going to have to start wearing a neck-brace from shaking my head -sadly, resignedly- each time I read the ARRL responses.  Sigh.

Steve WD8DAS




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 04:47:01 AM
Actually, in this response form letter, it looks like Old Joel has admitted defeat, since the IARU plan does not support U.S. regulations regarding AM, nor does it acknowledge established operating patterns and coordination.

Quote
if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: AB5S on November 14, 2007, 04:54:15 AM
Re: The ARRL Prez's letter.

On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

What a load...
The "voluntary band plans" are likely to be adopted by
multiple governments as law, and he knows that.
I guess he thinks we're stupid...



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 14, 2007, 01:30:47 PM
OH yes, I hope folks will just take those as talking points, but hey, if they get multiple sendouts that's okay too, since it shows the level of concern. I agree that some spam filters will scrape off an email with too many cc's, but from the traffic I've been seeing in response, the cc list among IARU players is long and varied.

I since have gotten emails from Dave Sumner and Larry Price, functionaries at the IARU who are either present or former ARRL administrators.  Price wrote a somewhat rambling article for the International Telecommunications Union, in which he expressed his opposition to "footnotes."

A footnote is how the ARRL's representatives tried to treat AM in their failed bandwidth petition to the FCC, later withdrawn, and it is the same tactic used in early versions of the IARU's voluntary band plan taking effect in January.

(http://www.itu.int//itunews/images/2007/08/amateur-radio-1.jpg)
Onetime ARRL president Larry Price, W4RA, now president of the IARU

In his ITU article, Price wrote, in part:
Quote
The amateur radio community seeks increased harmonization of frequency allocations, through the reduction and avoidance of country footnotes that reduce the availability of bands that are allocated internationally to radio amateurs.

In effect, Price equates the concept of footnotes with reduced availability of bands to licensees.  This is what would happen if AM were relegated to the status of a footnote in the voluntary IARU Region 2 Band Plan, which is why it is a suitable reference in expressions of concern to these groups.

So, are going to share with us Sumner's and Price's response to "your multiple sendouts". I would think that all some members here would be interested in what they said and how they responded to your statements.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 04:21:04 PM
Quote
So, are going to share with us Sumner's and Price's response to "your multiple sendouts". I would think that all some members here would be interested in what they said and how they responded to your statements.

Pete,
You're pretty tight with these guys, why don't you just ask them to copy you in on my correspondence, and you can say that's fine with me.

I am sure they will instantly comply with your request.

I would rather spend the time cleaning up the mess the ARRL reps made in Brazil.

If you're in touch, be a dear and ask them if they plan to endorse the suggested revisions underway by the non-U.S. representatives from Region 2.  They won't answer me on that point.

Then again, Price told me he was busy at the ITU and that it's not his department, and Sumner said he wasn't involved either.  I don't see any fingerprints from Harrison, so that leaves Paul Rinaldo and Rod Stafford. But wait Rod already told me he wasn't involved either.

Sic um !

OH, and while you're at it, can you please learn the decision-making process and list of talking points Rinaldo was commissioned to utter at Brazil ?  I'd hate to think he did something on his own, violating Harrison's dictum.

Quote
the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2,


Paul


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 14, 2007, 04:49:03 PM
Quote
So, are going to share with us Sumner's and Price's response to "your multiple sendouts". I would think that all some members here would be interested in what they said and how they responded to your statements.

Pete,
You're pretty tight with these guys, why don't you just ask them to copy you in on my correspondence, and you can say that's fine with me.

I am sure they will instantly comply with your request.

I would rather spend the time cleaning up the mess the ARRL reps made in Brazil.

If you're in touch, be a dear and ask them if they plan to endorse the suggested revisions underway by the non-U.S. representatives from Region 2.  They won't answer me on that point.

Then again, Price told me he was busy at the ITU and that it's not his department, and Sumner said he wasn't involved either.  I don't see any fingerprints from Harrison, so that leaves Paul Rinaldo and Rod Stafford. But wait Rod already told me he wasn't involved either.

Sic um !

OH, and while you're at it, can you please learn the decision-making process and list of talking points Rinaldo was commissioned to utter at Brazil ?  I'd hate to think he did something on his own, violating Harrison's dictum.

Quote
the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2,
Paul

Nah! I generally talk to Dave on matters of amateur radio that affect my specific operating modes and frequencies. Regional voluntary band plans don't fall into that category.
I'll let you savor those "intimate responses" by yourself. Have fun.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 05:42:26 PM
You're right Pete, it's probably best that you stay out of it.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 06:22:46 PM
SPAR's Board of Directors has voted to approve this letter and was to send it out today.

Thanks guys


The Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio (SPAR) is a group of
over 900 Amateurs who have banded together to ensure that both the
technical flavor and "look and feel" of Amateur Radio remains
available for future generations. Recently we discovered that Paul
Rinaldo, who pushed the ARRL's failed bandwidth petition, suggested a
2.7Kc bandwidth for the IARU Region 2 band plan during committee-level
deliberations that took place in Brazil. There was no known input,
justification, nor documented basis for this suggestion beyond
Mr. Rinaldo's expressed concern that "some people are running wider than
that," according to our source who attended the meeting.

Most licensees, including those who favor AM, wish to support and
comply with a voluntary band plan as a way of coordinating modes and
activities. Mr. Rinaldo, as a representative of the ARRL, (the club
that sits at the IARU table for U.S. licensees) has made it impossible for
many of us to support the IARU plan due to the proposed bandwidth
limitation. We feel any plan MUST include AM either by exception or
by avoiding a limit such as suggested by Paul Rinaldo.

In the United States, there is a fairly large number of AM enthusiasts
who buy and rebuild old equipment for use on the air. This AM
community solidly opposed the ARRL's failed bandwidth regulation plan,
and the bandwidth limit as proposed by Mr. Rinaldo could be viewed as
"pay back" for that opposition. We hope this is not the case and that
the IARU will simply exempt AM use, or remove the bandwidth limitation.

Finally, SPAR is concerned that the inclusion of an explicit bandwidth
limit in a voluntary bandplan is counter to the wishes of most amateurs,
as evidenced by the recent outcry against the ARRL's proposal to the
FCC. It should be noted that bandwidth limits were soundly rejected
by an overwhelming majority of the commenters and the ARRL petition was
subsequently withdrawn. Without the means to make bandwidth measurements,
the mention of a specific bandwidth limit adds nothing to the bandplan.
SPAR is concerned that the inclusion of a bandwidth limit is an attempt by the
ARRL to circumvent the expressed desires of the majority of amateurs.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W1QWT on November 14, 2007, 06:32:55 PM
Hi,
I had sent an email about the IARU fiasco to my EMA Section guy. He called me on the phone and pretty much seemed
to agree with me. He did forward my email to one of the assistant section guys who sent me a reasonable email
that was respectful. I don't agree with all of his comments but before I reply I wanted to run a section of it by you.
I have been  a design engineer and a member of the IEEE for almost 35 years. I have never heard anyone denounce the AM method of modulating a signal nor the analog domain. I am assuming that this gentleman is talking about amplitude modulation of RF carriers only. After all QAM is very popular these days in data transmissions both digitally and in the analog domain.
I am not knowledgeable about what the broadcast world is doing so I ask here hoping maybe someone from the
Society of Broadcast Engineers can tell me if AM broadcast is indeed going the way of the dinasour as this gentleman asserts.
Following is paragraph I question:
   
Quote
In replying, I am torn between my interests for furthering the preservation
and the operation of old equipment and the need for the ARRL to remain
"prgressive" as seen by international frequency determing agencies that
control our allocations.
AM as well as almost every analog form of communications have been totally
abandoned by the engineering communities around the world as outmoded
and obsolete.
There is indeed even hostility to its continued existence at the international level.
SW BC is scheduled to completely abandon AM by switching to a form of
SSB with a pilot carrier in the near term.

Regards
Q, W1QWT


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 07:13:25 PM
Q,

It's pretty cool that you have taken direct action in conversations with your local reps. The receptiveness you describe reminds me of how my phone call was received by the Canadian IARU representative, which was refreshingly very cordial.

I don't have the expertise to reply to your question as to whether the engineering community has starkly "abandoned" analog to the extent suggested. Worldwide, the aeronautical bands are on AM, and HF aeronautical worldwide is on SSB. HF maritime worldwide is on SSB, so there are several international examples to the contrary. Aren't the space shuttle and the International Space Station running analog air-to-ground comms too ?

It may be more suitable to distinguish the venues in which AM is comparatively discussed.

One problem with comparing our hobbyist-type AM to the commerce-based AM found in other services is the economic basis we do not have to consider.  Just as "digital" made sense for certain services to produce a greater revenue stream in a given slice of spectrum, I am sure that the remaining shortwave broadcasters are trying to cut as much overhead as possible.

As for spurning any modes that do not have the novelty of "digital," I again submit that the hobby we enjoy does not get measured by the style or progressiveness or efficiency of our non-commercial, non-essential signals.

Now about this fallacy perpetuated in some circles that ham radio needs to sell itself to the spectrum gods by showing how efficient we are at using our allocations.

Several quick holes can be punched in that approach, starting with the inefficiency represented by ANY unused spectrum that can be observed at any given time of monitoring across all our bands, but especially from 10 meters through UHF. We are under no mandate to try to achieve maximum band loading, so holes in our activity where nothing is going on do not create an "image" problem most of the time.

An exception, since addressed by the FCC to some extent, was the size of the CW reservations on HF that were oversized and did not match the typical level of operating use. On 75 and 40 meters, the areas set aside for CW now more closely represent the likely patterns of occupancy.

I note in passing that the FCC rejected the ARRL's inadequate bid to reapportion these bands toward popular phone activity by a mere 25Kc, and further rejected their proposed protected areas for digital communications that have not caught on to warrant reserved space.


Another hole in the theory of using efficiency to help bolster our claim on spectrum is the fact none of our communications are essential or revenue-producing. They all are chit-chat, except for emergency traffic. So chit chat taking place on CW has no greater claim on spectrum than chit chat on a phone mode, including AM, and including digital.

Digital chit chat will not make ham radio look more efficient than analog chit chat.

So, the metrics that are applied to our continued use of analog communications, including AM and SSB, are not the same as those applied to commercial or public service (police/fire) spectrum usage, in my way of looking at it.

I've probably gone on way too long, but I feel the need to dispute the idea that because the non-hobbyist world of radio has bought into "digital," that it must be part of our sales pitch too.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 08:30:55 PM
Thanks Mack, I initially got that from Mexico's representative at the IARU Region 2, a good guy and helpful to us.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 14, 2007, 08:31:25 PM
Gary and all:

I'm the CE of several broadcast stations here in the west; I was the first to support and  bring IBOC digital multicasting to this area; I've been responsible for, and built,  a state of the art digital recording studio here in the Denver area, (Willie Nelson, CSNY, Widespread Panic, Stevie Nicks, Sting, Robert Plant and a hundred more)

The fact that new and cutting-edge technology exists doesn't mean unplugging the older ones by mandate is a wise move. I still love our analog AM and FM broadcasting and I'm still working to make same the best that I can. I'm learning something new every day.

We're all in this together, regardless of favorite ham mode. The thought of disenfranchising ANY group of hams for no valid reason whatsoever diminishes us all.

It's a crock.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 14, 2007, 08:39:27 PM
Bill,
I will take the finger, seeing from whence it comes, but I think we are on the same side.

It's fine to present a balanced competency or affinity for digital and analog modes in professional and avocational venues.

I just will not accept that "digital" as a category is automatically preferable in our hobby.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 14, 2007, 08:55:55 PM
Paul:

This is like the pot-stirring by Wayne Green and friends a long time ago re: AM and SSB.

We are on indeed the same side of this particular issue.

To disenfranchise any group of hams is a terrible thing to do. I don't operate packet, slow scan TV, or much CW, but I would be equally outraged if our brethren using those modes were to be outlawed by either hostility or indifference.

I'm going to restrain my further comments on this matter- I don't exactly feel like being diplomatic to anyone that would take a pair of side-cutters to my mic cord.
My apologies to anyone who might have been offended.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k1qar on November 14, 2007, 09:16:36 PM
Had a lengthy email exchange with Mr Sumner today. 

His reply to my initial post was so fast (4 minutes) and unresponsive to my concerns that I assumed he had'nt read it, and said so.  Needless to say, I got his goat.  Several evasive replies later, coupled with the whole sneaky nature of this "ban-plan" thing, and I've had enuf.

Resigned the ARRL today. 

Ted, K1QAR




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WQ9E on November 14, 2007, 09:39:18 PM
Ted, 

I understand your feeling.  After membership "services" neglected to respond last week to either of my email requests for membership cancellation I had to spend about 10 minutes on the phone yesterday to accomplish the task.  It is a shame what has happened to the league but I have concluded that the only thing they understand is money (or the withholding thereof).  Between the constant begging for donations, support of wacker/emcomm world, support of winlink, and now the various bandplans I think they have finally alienated a sufficient number of people that either change will occur or they will suffer the same ultimate fate as every organization that ignores their membership and instead focuses upon internal pet projects.  Something all of our business students understand before they get out of their intro to marketing course is the marketing concept which states quite simply; "find out what your customers want and provide it for them".  The league has adopted the concept espoused by Lenin, Mao, and others; "we know what is best for you and we will watch out for you foolish and ignorant little children" and apparently our dear comrades in Newington don't want anything standing in the way of the rush to digital. 

The good new is that as the membership and circulation continue to fall then advertisers will be unwilling to continue to pay the current rates charged for QST.  It has been quite a while since our local Barnes and Noble have had QST on the rack and I am sure they are not the exception; fortunately CQ is still available.  At some point financial pressures will force changes within the league.

As a footnote, I find the pressure that was put on repeater owners to go with tone access quite humorous.  Although some of the most populous areas may still have crowding/interference issues the use of 2 meter FM has dropped so dramatically from its peak that many repeaters only come on to ID.  Another case of a solution in search of a problem.

Rodger WQ9E


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 14, 2007, 10:00:32 PM
Here is an interesting posting that showed up on the AM Reflector, from the UK.  The emphasis in bold print is mine. If Howard's observations are even remotely close to reality, things look pretty dismal. A harbinger of things to come on this side of the pond, or are we already there?

Quote
IARU & national societies. A view from the UK

I follow the bandplan debate with great interest, albeit from
the UK perspective.

Perhaps you are lucky that your national society does sometimes
respond to grass root pressure. Here in the UK, those running
our national society are not really accountable to the grass
roots, largely ignore them, and get away with it

As for experimenting, DIY and AM, these do not figure
high up in management's list of priorities.
There are
salaried staff to pay, publication deadlines to meet,
and advertisers to keep happy.

Granted there remain some volunteers who do good work
within UK's national society, but mainly it is run as a
business, or as one insider described it, it is now,
first and foremost, a trade association
, looking after
the interests of the big dealers and advertisers.

It seems though that membership of UK's national
society is flagging
, and gimmicks like one year's new
membership for 10 gbp, provided you sign a bank
direct debit form for the full amount next time, are
now the fashion, and as everyone here knows, the
management hopes people forget to cancel the direct
debits.

When we had new licensing rules forced on us a bit back,
thus opening up the bands to every tom, dick and harry,
unsuccessful attempts were made to change the official
name of the hobby from amateur radio to hobby radio....a
sort of amalgam between ham radio and CB. People who
enjoyed experimenting, diy or antiquities like AM were
regarded as dinosaurs.


What shows is that so many of the new people, having
licenses given on a plate or with their cereal packets,
don't retain interest in radio very long. What we see
here is an exercise to broaden interest in the dumbed
down hobby, and poach computer addicts in order to sell
more riceboxes. In doing that, it has alienated many
one time keen mature hams. Our bands are quiet, if not
almost deserted much of the time, unless there's a contest
on
.

So I wish you all good luck in seeing off your national
society management's bandplan machinations along with
the IARU's attempt at self glorification.


73..Howard/G3RXH




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 14, 2007, 10:25:54 PM
LOL. His description of the national society in the UK sounds surprising like the ARRL. He is a little off in the first paragraph with "Perhaps you are lucky that your national society does sometimes respond to grass root pressure." I'd say not.

Bill, you are right on. AM, or any other mode does not need to be outlawed to allow newer modes to flourish. If it's really about experimentation and new modes, less regulation will aid such, not more.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 15, 2007, 12:09:50 AM

Since I've been FAR from satisfied with the answers we're getting regarding the new Region 2 bandplan, I sent another message to ARRL and IARU Region 2 officials today, emphasizing my concerns about the new bandplan and taking a slightly different approach:  pointing out that the existing plan is far better than the new one.  Here's what I wrote, and the response I received from the President of the ARRL.   If you've been following this issue you should get a laugh out of it.  Guess what?  I'm ignorant and wrong again.

73  Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

ARRL and IARU Officials -

I see that the IARU has adopted, effective January 1, 2008, a new
voluntary band plan for Region 2 that would place restrictive
limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths and overlooks
commonly-used modes and practices on the bands 160 - 10m.

I am against such bandwidth and mode controls - tight regulation and
restrictions like these goes completely against the experimental and
innovative nature of ham radio.  The new Region 2 plan does not match
common practice on the bands and would likely be ignored by thousands
of operators.   What about AM operation?  How is bandwidth defined and
measured?

Voluntary or not, my position is that we need no such plans restricting
operation by bandwidth. Bandplans like this have a history of
increasing the stress among amateurs with arguments and
finger-pointing.   And without the details of how bandwidth is to be
defined and measured, the figures in the bandplan are meaningless -
except to cause fights among hams as they argue about them!

The existing IARU Region 2 bandplan is excellent - why the need for
change to bandwidth specifications?

Thank you.

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

Steve,

Thank you for your email.

Your information is not correct. The IARU Region 2 band plan will not
restrict AM operators in any way and you will notice no change whatsoever to
your operating preference as a result of it.

ARRL has no regulatory petition pending, proposed or planned that would
limit or restrict AM phone operation in any way.

I have copied your ARRL Division Director, Dick Isely, W9GIG, on this email
so he will be aware of your comments as well.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -







Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 15, 2007, 12:20:48 AM

My further response to the ARRL President...

- - - - - - - - -

w5zn@arrl.org writes:

>Your information is not correct. The IARU Region 2 band
>plan will not restrict AM operators in any way and you
>will notice no change whatsoever to your operating
>preference as a result of it.

I'm not relying upon second-hand information.  I've corresponded with IARU Region 2 officials, who indicated that the intention was indeed to limit bandwidths of various digital and phone modes, at the suggestion of an ARRL representative.  And I've read the new plan myself, both the first edition and the later revision - I'll attach copies of them to this email for your inspection. 

The new plan calls for SSB max bandwidth of 2.7 kHz.  It mentions 6 kHz bandwidth AM only on a couple small ranges on a couple bands.  This is much more restrictive than our present IARU Region 2 band plan, is it not??  Look for yourself.

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS


- - - - - - - - - - -


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 15, 2007, 03:02:05 AM
Here is a  copy of the e-mail I  sent to the delta division director, and CC'ed to other ARRL officials.  I am waiting for their response.

Quote
Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q
Delta Division Director


Dear Mr. Leggette:


I have at least two major concerns regarding the IARU voluntary band plan
for Region 2, slated to go into effect on 01 January, 2008.

I am aware that this bandplan will be voluntary and as such cannot legally
be enforced unless its provisions are written into the national government
regulations, but quoting from the preamble that introduces the band plan,
"it is suggested that Member Societies, IN COORDINATION WITH THE
AUTHORITIES, INCORPORATE IT INTO THEIR REGULATIONS and PROMOTE IT WIDELY
with their radio amateur communities (emphasis mine)." Therefore, even
though this band plan would not have the force of law per se, it goes
against many present-day operating practices and could potentially block new
modes with bandwidths wider than that of communications quality SSB,  and it
specifically encourages Region 2 nations to incorporate the suggested
bandwidth and other limitations into their government-sanctioned amateur
regulations .

The "Maximum Bandwidth" column clearly suggests limitations to occupied
bandwidth, per the "Explanations" footnote:   "Bandwidths - The number in
the bandwidth column always refers to the maximum allowed."

The purpose of a voluntary band plan is to agree on how the users of various
modes of emission will share the frequency allocations within each amateur
band.  The purpose is not to set emission standards.  Maximum transmitting
bandwidth falls under the category of emission standards. The "Maximum
Bandwidth" column, which appears to be an adaptation from the IARU Region I
band plan, should be deleted altogether, or else it should be made to
clearly refer to NECESSARY bandwidth, not OCCUPIED bandwidth.

Specific limitations of occupied bandwidth are  inappropriate for the
amateur service, given its fundamental basis and purpose.  Amateurs should
be allowed the maximum practicable degree of flexibility for
experimentation, communication and self-instruction in the radio art. Most
of us employ receivers with variable selectivity, allowing us to adjust our
reception for a wide variety of band conditions, including the degree of
interference and congestion.  We should likewise have the same option with
our transmitted signals, to appropriately adjust transmitting bandwidth
commensurately with the degree of congestion in the vicinity of our
operating frequency.

Of equal concern is the apparent curtailment of the use of conventional
double-sideband AM voice transmission and other modes that exceed the
occupied bandwidth of communications quality SSB. Conforming to the
currently proposed bandwidth limitations would allow AM to be used
throughout the voice portion only in the 40 metre band.  This mode would be
limited to specific, narrow segments of the 80, 20 and 10 metre bands, and
there is no provision at all for AM in the 160 metre band, even though this
is one of the most widely used bands by AM operators in the United States
and Canada, and there appears to be substantial use of this band for AM
operation in other countries south of the US border, particularly in Cuba.
Likewise, there is no provision for AM operation in the 17, 15 or 12 metre
bands.

Even though this band plan would not be the law, it is to be assumed good
amateur practice to follow the regional band plan, and it will likely cause
conflict between licensees who choose not to follow it, and those who would
insist that it should be treated like the law. The band plan in its present
form appears to promote the inclusion of unnecessary restrictions in the
accepted operating practices and national amateur radio regulations of all
countries in Region 2. We must not forget that there are other nations in
Region 2 besides the US and Canada. Even though the publication of this band
plan may not directly or immediately affect US or Canadian operation,
amateur radio is international in nature and it would equally inadvisable to
promote unnecessary restrictions to amateur radio operation in other
countries in the Americas.

The revised IARU Region 2 can be made acceptable by making two minor
changes.  I strongly urge that the League, as my representative at IARU, to
attempt to have this band plan revisited before its final issuance on 01
January 2008, and that all references to occupied bandwidth be deleted.  I
also urge that all forms of voice transmission be referred to simply as
"phone", whose definition  would include all forms of single, double and
independent sideband amplitude modulation, with full, reduced or suppressed
carrier, as well as frequency modulation under the stipulation that below
29.0 mHz, the modulation index not be greater than 1 at the highest
modulation frequency.

Cordial 73,

Donald Chester, K4KYV


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 15, 2007, 08:44:29 AM
I haven't had the time to look but what is the take on this band plan from the other ham related boards, i.e. QRZ.com, eham glowbugs etc. Are they, (slopbucketeers and CW's) just as pissed off as we or are we appearing as the only group, designated by our mode, that is solely against this proposition?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 15, 2007, 09:29:55 AM
Maybe Joel should read W9GIG's words.

Quote
I seriously doubt if another regulation by bandwidth proposal will be put
forth by the ARRL board in the near future.  We failed to educate the
U.S. amateur radio community about the history of and rationale for
our first proposal, and to make sure nearly everyone understood how
it would work.  The ARRL board of directors has to do it's homework
if we want to have regulation by bandwidth accepted by the U.S.
amateur radio community.

I support amateur radio HF regulation by bandwidth.  However, I will
not support an effort to rush another proposal to the FCC.  I have no idea how
long this educational process will take.  But I currently believe
anything shorter than two years from 1 JAN 2008 will fail.





Since I've been FAR from satisfied with the answers we're getting regarding the new Region 2 bandplan, I sent another message to ARRL and IARU Region 2 officials today, emphasizing my concerns about the new bandplan and taking a slightly different approach:  pointing out that the existing plan is far better than the new one.  Here's what I wrote, and the response I received from the President of the ARRL.   If you've been following this issue you should get a laugh out of it.  Guess what?  I'm ignorant and wrong again.

73  Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

ARRL and IARU Officials -

I see that the IARU has adopted, effective January 1, 2008, a new
voluntary band plan for Region 2 that would place restrictive
limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths and overlooks
commonly-used modes and practices on the bands 160 - 10m.

I am against such bandwidth and mode controls - tight regulation and
restrictions like these goes completely against the experimental and
innovative nature of ham radio.  The new Region 2 plan does not match
common practice on the bands and would likely be ignored by thousands
of operators.   What about AM operation?  How is bandwidth defined and
measured?

Voluntary or not, my position is that we need no such plans restricting
operation by bandwidth. Bandplans like this have a history of
increasing the stress among amateurs with arguments and
finger-pointing.   And without the details of how bandwidth is to be
defined and measured, the figures in the bandplan are meaningless -
except to cause fights among hams as they argue about them!

The existing IARU Region 2 bandplan is excellent - why the need for
change to bandwidth specifications?

Thank you.

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

Steve,

Thank you for your email.

Your information is not correct. The IARU Region 2 band plan will not
restrict AM operators in any way and you will notice no change whatsoever to
your operating preference as a result of it.

ARRL has no regulatory petition pending, proposed or planned that would
limit or restrict AM phone operation in any way.

I have copied your ARRL Division Director, Dick Isely, W9GIG, on this email
so he will be aware of your comments as well.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -








Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 15, 2007, 09:32:57 AM

More from the ARRL President -

- - - - - - - - -

Steve, I know the Region 2 officials personally, and was with many of them just two weeks ago. I know what you and others were told and you are incorrect in your assessment. Of course, you are free to impose voluntary restrictions on yourself if you so chose, but it is not required by ARRL, the FCC Part 97 regulations in the United States or the Region 2 Band plan.

73 Joel W5ZN 

- - - - - - - - -

Thanks for the additional info, Joel.  And thank you for working through this with me.  I thought that we (the hams of Region 2) should be involved in the development of any changes to the bandplans so that the plan matches our present and expected use of the bands - thus my efforts to make my views known.

Just to clarify - do you and the League feel that American hams should ignore the Region 2 bandplan?

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -











Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 15, 2007, 09:40:39 AM
Harrison has not resolved the preamble that calls on member societies to actively promote the plan to regulatory agencies.

Does he intend not to follow that preamble ?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 15, 2007, 09:41:27 AM
Hilarious. Trapped by his own words. :D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 15, 2007, 09:43:12 AM
I haven't had the time to look but what is the take on this band plan from the other ham related boards, i.e. QRZ.com, eham glowbugs etc. Are they, (slopbucketeers and CW's) just as pissed off as we or are we appearing as the only group, designated by our mode, that is solely against this proposition?

Mike I haven't found much among other bandwidth users (not consumers).

I imagine many have bought into a passive acceptance that this is only a voluntary plan and can be ignored.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KB2WIG on November 15, 2007, 09:44:51 AM
 R/E the preamble, I guess he doesn't want " ... to impose voluntary restrictions on ... " himself .... ..

klc


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 15, 2007, 10:31:50 AM
I haven't had the time to look but what is the take on this band plan from the other ham related boards, i.e. QRZ.com, eham glowbugs etc. Are they, (slopbucketeers and CW's) just as pissed off as we or are we appearing as the only group, designated by our mode, that is solely against this proposition?

When the news was first released, there were a couple of threads on QRZ.com.  The  comments posted on the subject were mostly negative, citing Winlink and the failed bandwidth proposal, but I don't think very many were stirred enough to actually write or e-mail League or IARU officials on the subject.  As typical, the thread quickly deteriorated to an exchange of personal swats.  I have checked e-ham, but found nothing mentioned on the subject.  The format of their forum index makes it difficult to locate a thread on a random subject.

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=e7856cc7e0f2fb91780ed82df91fc20d;act=ST;f=7;t=170734


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 15, 2007, 11:38:29 AM
There were probably three useful posts in that thread. The rest were parties with old feuds playing them out again in a new forum. Sad.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 15, 2007, 02:38:18 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Nov 15, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: Region II Brazil
To: Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>
Cc: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, leandror@bellsouth.net, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


Joel,

I understand from several people that you have taken the lead in
responding to questions being raised about the ARRL's representation
of U.S. licensees at the IARU meeting in Brazil.

Please respond directly to the following questions to help resolve
this matter, which has generated far too much heat and not much light.

1. Will you immediately and publicly disclose the policy that was
handed to your representative to carry to the table? I specifically
wish to learn the predetermined basis for the bandwidth overlays that
ultimately were approved by the IARU. How were these numbers
developed, and with whom did you consult in establishing these
numbers. (all points in this question must be answered)

Basis for Question No. 1:
Your letter being sent to multiple recipients asserts, in part, that
"the ARRL Board of Directors ... determine the policy for ARRL's input
to IARU Region 2..."

~~~~~~~~~
2. How do you intend to square your group's endorsement of these
bandwidth overlays in the Region 2 plan, against the IARU's suggestion
that member societies promote these plans for consideration by
government regulators? Your answer must either be that you intend to
ignore that suggestion, or an acknowledgment that you intend to do
just that.

Basis for Question No. 2:
The same letter being sent to multiple recipients that states, in
part, "I can assure you that there are no plans to propose
incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules."

The preamble to the IARU Region 2 plan asserts:
"It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the
authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely
with their radio amateur communities."
~~~~~~~

Please be advised that your answers in your emailed response will be
public record and distributed with attribution and in the context
conveyed above.

Paul



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on November 15, 2007, 04:51:55 PM
For what it's worth, I have added my two cents.  I sent my comments direct to the Region 2 IARU folks. 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: K7EK on November 15, 2007, 05:55:33 PM
I received the following reply in response to my message about the new band plan that would
take place in January, 2008.

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK


---

Gary,

 

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns with regard to the band plan adopted recently by the member-societies of IARU Region 2. You sent your message to a number of individuals; because the ARRL is the representative organization in the IARU for radio amateurs of the United States , I am replying on their behalf.

IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU member-societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory authority. On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

 

The new IARU Region 2 band plan was developed by delegates to the Region 2 Conference from a number of countries. It does not align in every respect either with the FCC rules or with operating patterns followed by US amateurs. Unlike the United States , most countries do not have regulations setting out subbands for different types of emission. Even in the US the FCC rules do not provide much detail with regard to frequency use. As FCC amateur licensees we are obliged to cooperate with one another in selecting transmitting channels and making the most effective use of amateur service frequencies, and to follow good engineering and good amateur practice.

 

Your message objects to the Region 2 band plan for “suggesting limits that are more severe than regulations from the governments in the region.” However, the band plan does not contain “limits.” As voluntary guidelines the band plan cannot by definition be “more severe” than regulations. And finally, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.

Your message refers to IARU President Larry Price as wishing “to discourage footnotes among the various regional plans he oversees.” First, the IARU President does not “oversee” regional band plans. Each regional plan is developed by the member-societies of that region, in accordance with the constitution, bylaws and rules of the regional organization. The regional organizations are autonomous entities and do not answer to the IARU President. Second, Mr. Price’s observation with regard to footnotes had nothing whatsoever to do with IARU band plans. Footnotes are not by their nature either good or bad; it depends on what they say. Mr. Price’s observation had to do specifically with footnotes in the ITU Table of Frequency Allocations that prohibit amateur operation, or authorize sharing by additional services, in certain countries in certain parts of the bands that are allocated in the ITU Table to the amateur service. One of the goals of the IARU is to minimize such footnotes. On the other hand, there are other footnotes to the ITU Table that are extremely beneficial to Amateur Radio, such as the ones permitting amateur-satellite operation. In any case this is totally unrelated to IARU band planning activities, which are internal to the amateur service and to each regional IARU organization and have nothing whatever to do with the ITU.

 

I hope this has reassured you that nothing will happen on January 1 that will in any way affect your use of AM. We are always seeking ways to improve the process of revision of the IARU Region 2 band plan and the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2, are always open to member input on future revisions that ARRL delegates may take to future Region 2 Conferences. I encourage you to communicate with the Division Director in your ARRL Division.

 

Sincere 73,

 

Joel Harrison, W5ZN

ARRL President

---


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 15, 2007, 06:56:06 PM
Over on the SPAR discussion board, AI4ET, Daniel Hawthorne,
offers this research.


Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am   
Mr. Joel Harrison W5ZN

Color me skeptical. Its not that I don't believe a single word you say; Its just that your words fly in the face of your organizations past actions. As the saying goes Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

From the FCC web site:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc

D. RM-9259

1.1 Background. On April 3, 1998, the ARRL filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling, RM-9259, requesting that the Commission declare that the phrase "good amateur practice" as used in the amateur service rules requires that control operators of amateur radio stations comply with voluntary band plans adopted by other amateur radio operators across the country and around the world. The ARRL also request we declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accordance with good amateur practice. It states that non-compliance with accepted band plans which causes interference to one or more amateur service stations that are operating in accordance with these accepted band plans should not be considered good amateur practice under any circumstances. It also states that as more users attempt to operate in increasingly crowded spectrum, it becomes more important for us to define minimal standards of "good amateur practice" in order to prevent interference by "rogue operators." It notes, however, that rigid enforcement of band plans is neither warranted or feasible, and it does not seek to fix the current band plans as they are, or to incorporate voluntary band plans by reference into the Rules. The Commission sought comment on this petition on April 21, 1998. In response to our request for comment, we received over seventy comments and reply comments.

1.2 Decision. One of the basic principles of the amateur service is that all frequencies are shared and no frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. Voluntary band planning within the amateur service community, by licensees and representatives of licensees who have a vested interest in ensuring fair and effective use of amateur service frequencies, is a method that the amateur service community has long used to meet the requirement of Section 97.101 that each licensee and control operator make the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. It allows the amateur service community to accommodate the varied operating interests of licensees and the specific operating activities that a station or group of stations wishes to engage in without explicit regulation. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to reallocate its spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor. The Commission's role in amateur service band planning, especially on the HF and Medium Frequency amateur service bands, generally has been limited to establishing the emission types that can be transmitted in different frequency segments.

1.3 We believe that it is not necessary to define the term "good amateur practice" as used in the Rules as requiring that amateur stations comply with voluntary band plans or declare that any amateur station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accord with good amateur practice. We believe that such definition would have the effect of transforming voluntary band plans into de facto required mandates. We do not believe that such a result would be consistent with the underlying intent of the Commission's policy regarding voluntary band planning in the amateur service.

1.4 In this connection, we note that numerous commenters object to the request, and to any attempt to establish mandatory band plans. We also note that the ARRL has stated that rigid enforcement of band plans is neither warranted or feasible. We nonetheless reiterate the requirements set forth in Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules, which provides that no amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. We will dismiss RM-9250 because the declaratory ruling requested therein is unnecessary.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 15, 2007, 07:19:43 PM


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Nov 15, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Region II Brazil
To: Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>
Cc: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, leandror@bellsouth.net, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


Dear IARU Representatives,

As questions continue about the ARRL's representation of U.S.
licensees at the IARU Region 2 deliberations in Brazil in September,
an additional respected group of concerned licensees will be
contacting you to express their alarm.

Their letter will circulate to you along multiple paths, including
this courtesy copy I am supplying tonight.

Please be receptive to them.

I urge you to fully and quickly respond to our queries, and to
completely and publicly document the process that led to the problems
we are discussing.  The longer you delay, the more persistence you
will trigger.

Regards,

Paul Courson
WA3VJB
202 215 3885

~~~~~~~~~

The Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio (SPAR) is a group of
over 900 Amateurs who have banded together to ensure that both the
technical flavor and "look and feel" of Amateur Radio remains
available for future generations. Recently we discovered that Paul
Rinaldo, who pushed the ARRL's failed bandwidth petition, suggested a
2.7Kc bandwidth for the IARU Region 2 band plan during committee-level
deliberations that took place in Brazil. There was no known input,
justification, nor documented basis for this suggestion beyond
Mr. Rinaldo's expressed concern that "some people are running wider than
that," according to our source who attended the meeting.

Most licensees, including those who favor AM, wish to support and
comply with a voluntary band plan as a way of coordinating modes and
activities. Mr. Rinaldo, as a representative of the ARRL, (the club
that sits at the IARU table for U.S. licensees) has made it impossible for
many of us to support the IARU plan due to the proposed bandwidth
limitation. We feel any plan MUST include AM either by exception or
by avoiding a limit such as suggested by Paul Rinaldo.

In the United States, there is a fairly large number of AM enthusiasts
who buy and rebuild old equipment for use on the air. This AM
community solidly opposed the ARRL's failed bandwidth regulation plan,
and the bandwidth limit as proposed by Mr. Rinaldo could be viewed as
"pay back" for that opposition. We hope this is not the case and that
the IARU will simply exempt AM use, or remove the bandwidth limitation.

Finally, SPAR is concerned that the inclusion of an explicit bandwidth
limit in a voluntary bandplan is counter to the wishes of most amateurs,
as evidenced by the recent outcry against the ARRL's proposal to the
FCC. It should be noted that bandwidth limits were soundly rejected
by an overwhelming majority of the commenters and the ARRL petition was
subsequently withdrawn. Without the means to make bandwidth measurements,
the mention of a specific bandwidth limit adds nothing to the bandplan.
SPAR is concerned that the inclusion of a bandwidth limit is an attempt by the
ARRL to circumvent the expressed desires of the majority of amateurs.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 15, 2007, 07:23:47 PM
Over on the SPAR discussion board, AI4ET, Daniel Hawthorne,
offers this research.





1.1 Background. On April 3, 1998, the ARRL filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling, RM-9259, requesting that the Commission declare that the phrase "good amateur practice" as used in the amateur service rules requires that control operators of amateur radio stations comply with voluntary band plans adopted by other amateur radio operators across the country and around the world.


//snip//


POW!!!!  Good one!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed - N3LHB on November 15, 2007, 10:48:39 PM
I received another reply from another official from one of my follow up emails from my original protest. I like the fact that he addressed the email to me, but neglected to erase Larry's name... seems more like an ad to join arrl...

ED,

 

Larry,

 

For what it is worth, I will support the continued use of AM for as long as I am the Great Lakes Division Director and so long as AM remains legal in this country.  In addition, I know of no one on the Board of Directors who will support abolishing or restricting AM.

 

Unfortunately, you have made yourself a bit vulnerable to irrational information such as this one about the Region 2 bandplan having any strength in the US.  This is because you don't receive all the pertinent information that is available to ARRL members -- such as my monthly e-mail newsletter.  Membership in ARRL would make it much easier for you to learn the truth facts on many issues

 

73, GL,

 

Jim

 

 

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director

ARRL Great Lakes Division

5065 Bethany Rd.

Mason, OH 45040

E-mail:  k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142

ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!

Members - The Reason ARRL Is!




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 16, 2007, 05:12:14 AM
Quote
Membership in ARRL would make it much easier for you to learn the truth facts on many issues

That's right.
That's right.

Actually, I have heard some good things about Jim during the correspondence in the late discovery of the mess made in Brazil by the ARRL.  I tentatively list him in the category of Good Guys at the club in Newington.

He, for example, was one of the three regions initiating a for-real, statistically valid survey of subscribers, the results of which show nearly 20 percent of some 3000 respondents list AM as among their HF operating activities.

He used the survey results as preparation for an ARRL board meeting earlier this year, where the Directors, including himself, come up with the agenda that the paid staff are supposed to follow.

This is the start of a regaining of control by the Board over the cowboys like Rinaldo and Sumner, who have enjoyed being able to operate pretty much at their own volition in recent years.

These are facts.

This truth has not appeared in any League publication, so you didn't miss anything there. The publications are run by paid staff.

And the entire IARU Band Plan controversy is not being disclosed in any ARRL outlets either, so that's not where you're getting any information.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 16, 2007, 09:05:51 AM
Here is the email I just sent to the three major players, Price, Sumner, & Rinaldo regarding said proposal. Take note, that I refer to organizations in the email the same way I do here on the board. (also no 'Mod-U-Lator' at the end)


Gentlemen,
   
My name is Mike Sawyer, W3SLK and I'm writing in response to the IARU Reg. 2 Band plan which was proposed in September 2007 and scheduled to go into effect January 2008. First a little information about myself, I’m not a radio engineer, nor am I associated with any commercial communications group. Nor am I a member of the A.R.R.(gghh)L. I have been involved with amateur radio since about 1974 and celebrate it as the reason for my employment in the electronics field.

    By now you have probably been inundated with numerous emails and communications regarding the band plan. It is not my intention to rehash what has been previously been stated but to ask three simple questions.

 

    Question#1: Why wasn't there any survey or input from amateur radio operators in the U.S. since the bandwidth proposals where requested by A.R.R.(gghh)L. representatives? Since the (be)League(d) only represents 20~25% of licensed amateurs in the U.S. and represents all of them at the IARU Reg. 2.

 

    Question#2: Why was the following paragraph that was present in the 1998 bandwidth proposal omitted from the 2008 proposal?

".....These band plans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except in some countries in which the band plans are written into the national regulations. The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to the IARU band plans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to be this way. The plans are prepared in a democratic way with input from any
country's member society. The plans are discussed, modified and voted upon at IARU Regional General Assemblies with each country (large or small) having only one vote. If an individual or group is not satisfied with the band plans as they are and has a suggestion for improvement then he should submit it, with as much documentation as possible, to his IARU member
society......"

 

    Question#3: If these will not effect our operation and are purely voluntary, why put so much time, effort, travel, and money into establishing them? If we are to keep operating the way we are now, we (U.S. amateurs) will not be the vast majority that conform!

 

    You will have noticed that I hold nothing but contempt and cynicism for the A.R.R.(gghh)L. Due to issues like F.C.C. Petition RM-11306, it has hardened my stance against the (be)League(d). Also having been employed in different venues of electronics, I am wise to the notion of "Incremental Change." I think I speak for my brethren/sisters of the amateur radio community when I paraphrase a quote from the poet Dylan Thomas: "We will not go gently into that good night!"

 

Sincerely,

Mike Sawyer
W3SLK


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KB2WIG on November 16, 2007, 01:06:56 PM
The word is slowly getting out.....  From the Troy (NY) ARA newsletter,


http://www.n2ty.org/newsletter/tn1007.pdf


klc


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 16, 2007, 01:49:15 PM
I sent a letter to Delta Division Director, and CC'ed it to others at HQ, including Rinaldo and Sumner.  So far this is all I have received in return:

Quote
Hi Don,

Yesterday, I advised you I would reply to you as soon as time permits after the storm in Memphis and Shelby County.  I should advise you when I return home on Sunday night due to my ARRL travel in Newington, CT at ARRL HQ for a committee meeting.  I promise, you will get a response as soon after I return home maybe Monday or shortly there afterwards. 

I don't have my PC with me and I wanted you to know I have not forgotten your very important concerns.

Best of 73,
Henry R. leggette. WD4Q

It will be interesting if he follows up with anything additional from HQ.  FWIW, at least he, unlike the responses from HQ personnel that I have seen, has acknowledged that this concern is "very important".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: K6JEK on November 16, 2007, 04:03:00 PM
Any bets on whether this letter to QST gets published? 


From: K6JEK <k6jek@comcast.net>
Date: November 16, 2007 12:48:36 PM PST
To: qst@arrl.org
Subject: Correspondence:  IARU coverage

The IARU Region 2 band plan deserves more explanation than it received in the recent QST -- a two sentence note on page 74 of December 2007 issue. This plan for our region outlaws ESSB entirely and prohibits AM transmission on all HF bands except 75 and 10 meters and restricts it severely on those. While we in the US know that this is a voluntary plan superseded by FCC regulations, it is nonetheless concerning that the IARU plan for our region contains these restrictions. I, for one, don't understand why the ARRL, the US representative to the IARU, voted for this plan. I would also like to understand where this is going. Does the ARRL support these restrictions? Will the ARRL be proposing them to the FCC in the future?  Will the ARRL seek to overturn this part of the IARU plan on behalf of US amateurs? Whatever the situation, the ARRL owes an explanation to all US amateurs on this subject.

Thank you,

Jon Kannegaard, K6JEK
Diamond Club Member


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 16, 2007, 06:24:07 PM
Any bets on whether this letter to QST gets published? 

Sure they will print it.
It gives them a chance to talk down to you and all the other poor slobs who fail to understand.

If you want to bet whether they will ANSWER all your negative, full-of-attitude questions, then I've got some money here if anyone thinks so.

[/sarcasm]

For szhts & grins I sent it along to Larry, Dave, Paul and my other drinking buddies at the IARU, requesting a response.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: KA8WTK on November 16, 2007, 06:47:10 PM
Any bets on whether this letter to QST gets published? 
It gives them a chance to talk down to you and all the other poor slobs who fail to understand.
Paul, you got it wrong. He does understand. The problem is that we are ignorant. We are ignorant of a complete set of background information that led to this band plan being proposed to and adopted by the IARU.

But, we DO understand what is and what CAN happen.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 17, 2007, 09:25:46 AM


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Reinaldo Leandro <leandror@bellsouth.net>
Date: Nov 16, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: Region II Brazil
To: Paul Courson, Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>
Cc: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


 
 
 

 

Dear Mr. Courson,

 

This is to acknowledge your recent email regarding the Region 2 Band Plan.

 

The band plan is a voluntary guideline for operation.  The regulations in any country within Region 2 take precedence over the voluntary Region 2 band plan.

 

Any concerns regarding the band plan should be addressed to your own IARU Member Society which is the American Radio Relay League.  The American Radio Relay League can then address any concerns at the next regional triennial conference in 2010.

 

73,

 

Reinaldo Leandro YV5AMH

President, IARU Region 2
 

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Nov 17, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Region II Brazil
To: Reinaldo Leandro <leandror@bellsouth.net>
Cc: Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


Hello Reinaldo,

Thank you for your reply.

A number of us have been unable to obtain responses from our member
society, which is why we feel the need to step around them.

We need specific details and documentation as to how their policy was
developed, with whom they consulted, and what the specific policy was
that their representative offered at the Region 2 table in September.

Additionally, the actions to repair the mess made in Brazil by our
member society will need to take place before the plan is implemented
in January.

Are you prepared to intervene and help us overcome their obstruction?

As I have mentioned and said explicitly, there are many, many U.S.
licensees who wish to support the IARU and its voluntary band plan for
Region 2.  We feel this is a bad approach as written, and that some of
the key components were floated by our member society and are
misguided.

This is why we need the support and assistance of non-U.S. delegates
at this time.

I also request your guidance on how we may seek recourse through the
IARU against our member society as part of your formal complaint
process. This too, will help convince our neglectful member society
that our concerns are substantial and need immediate action.

Paul


 

-----Original Message-----
 From: Paul Courson
 Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:17 PM
 To: Larry E Price
 Cc: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; leandror@bellsouth.net; Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President); co2rp@jovenclub.cu; Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD; pt2adm@pobox.com; lu2ah@szama.com; Price, Larry (President, IARU); Ellam, Tim, VE6SH; Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU); Harrison, Joel (President); Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President); Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI; k1ce@arrl.net; Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.); Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)
 Subject: Re: Region II Brazil

 

Dear IARU Representatives,

 

As questions continue about the ARRL's representation of U.S.

licensees at the IARU Region 2 deliberations in Brazil in September,

an additional respected group of concerned licensees will be

contacting you to express their alarm.

 

Their letter will circulate to you along multiple paths, including

this courtesy copy I am supplying tonight.

 

Please be receptive to them.

 

I urge you to fully and quickly respond to our queries, and to

completely and publicly document the process that led to the problems

we are discussing.  The longer you delay, the more persistence you

will trigger.

 

Regards,

 

Paul Courson

WA3VJB


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 17, 2007, 11:01:49 AM
Man Paul!,

NOBODY wants to admit having a part in this band plan!!  Much less doing anything to kill it.  Now the buck passing is beginning:

"Any concerns regarding the band plan should be addressed to your own IARU Member Society which is the American Radio Relay League.  The American Radio Relay League can then address any concerns at the next regional triennial conference in 2010."

Indeed!!  Look at the success we've had with the ARRL on this issue!  They're either rude, condescending, or only willing to admit off the record that it's not a good plan!  This is looking more like an endrun for regulation by bandwidth, with stonewalling thrown in, so that it can get enacted, before too much opposition to it builds up.   It's looking more and more, like once again, I'm going to be sending comments to the FCC, against an RM-11306 style band regulation proposal.

73,
Ellen - AF9J   

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 17, 2007, 12:45:49 PM
From ARRL Bulletin 8 ARLB008 1/20/98
Quote
The ARRL also will ask the FCC for a declaratory ruling to put teeth
into the voluntary band plan concept. The League wants the FCC to
affirm that any operation that conflicts with established, voluntary
band plans and causes interference or adversely affects those
operating in accordance with applicable band plans ''is not good
amateur practice'' and would be considered a rules violation.

From FCC 04-79 which was the R&O for 04-140 released April 15th 2004.
Quote
The Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) previously addressed the issue of a mandatory band plan in lieu of a voluntary band plan in 1999.  In the Order, the Division denied a request that it declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is in violation of the Commission’s Rules.  It noted that such a result would be inconsistent with the fundamental principle of shared frequencies in the amateur service.  Additionally, the Division stated that granting the request would effectively transform voluntary band plans into de facto required mandates.  Rather, the Division found that because all amateur service frequencies are shared, our Rules do not assign a particular operating activity (such as using CW to attempt long distance international communications) to a specific frequency segment.  Because the petitioner has not presented any unique or changed circumstances to warrant a mandatory band plan, we find no basis to disturb this fundamental principle.

League officials continue to beat the same drum: the band plan carries no legal force, so AM'ers in the US have nothing to worry about, and the recently expressed concern is nothing more than alarmist propaganda spread by people with an anti-League agenda who fail to comprehend the voluntary nature of band plans.

No-one at IARU will admit to having anything to do with the bandwidth provision, nor will they even admit knowledge of who authored it (although it has leaked out that Rinaldo is the culprit).

True, it would not pose a direct immediate threat to present day operation in the US or Canada, but I suspect that the hope is that the bandwidth provisions will "acclimate" the international amateur radio community to the idea of "voluntary" bandwidth limitations, thus making it more likely that future proposals to give these limitations force of law will generate less opposition than did the recent failed attempt by the League in the US.

As previously noted, Region I and III band plans already carry provisions for specific bandwidth limitations.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W9AD on November 17, 2007, 12:53:20 PM
There has been an interesting uncanned exchange of e-mails between my buddy Larry/W8ER and Joel Harrison/W5ZN (ARRL President) posted at: http://www.amham.com/


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 17, 2007, 12:58:55 PM


Response to WD8DAS from ARRL President:

- - - - - - - - -

Hi Steve,

We believe amateur radio operators should exercise good operating practice by using our allocated spectrum efficiently, so a recommendation in a voluntary band plan is a good thing and we hope radio amateurs would use it as a guideline for their operating preferences.

I don’t believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation, though.

Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always, is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from all sources, including the AM community, and we will continue to work toward the best possible band plan for the entire region, as well as to continue to recognize existing modes of operation in the United States in our band plans.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 17, 2007, 12:59:30 PM

My reply to the ARRL President :

- - - - - - - -

Joel wrote:


Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always, is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from all sources,


I'm glad to hear that - but why isn't it happening this time?!  Why was the bandplan now set to go into effect on January 1, 2008, finished without seeking any input?  And when the document was discovered on the IARU Region 2 website, and I expressed my concerns, ARRL officials acted very defensively and "cagey" about it.

For example, your answer to my question "Should American hams ignore the IARU Region 2 bandplan?" was a bit evasive.  You're saying the new plan doesn't have any power over US hams, but bandplans represent sent "good amateur practice" and so we should follow bandplans.   

Of course I know I can continue to operate as I already do, Joel.  The IARU and ARRL have no regulatory authority now.  But I see ample evidence that both organizations seek to obtain just that kind of authority in the future.  The bandplan document in question says so right in the first paragraph, and the IARU and ARRL voted in favor of the new plan.  And in 1998 the ARRL asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling that "good amateur practice" means following bandplans.  That's pretty clear isn't it? 

So bandplans do matter.  And hams whose present modes and practices are not covered in the bandplan will eventually find themselves to be outlaws.  My main message is that bandplans should be based on current practice of the hams on the bands and a wide range of opinions about future plans.  Not from arbitrary decisions made by small committees.

Let me lay it all on the table.  Here is a summary of the actual written messages I have so far heard from IARU and ARRL Directors and Officials on this issue:

IARU Region 2 folks report:

1.  B/C committee member Rinaldo of the ARRL called for the specific mention of relatively narrow bandwidth specifications in the new bandplan. 
2.  ARRL says hams need to use narrower bandwidths.

ARRL Directors and Officials have told me:

1.  Yes, ARRL voted in favor of  the new bandplan, and it is a good thing. 
2.  Members who are questioning the League on this issue are ignorant.
3.  The new plan is only voluntary, so don't worry about it.
4.  The new bandplan won't have any impact on operations in the US.
5.  Don't worry, the ARRL doesn't plan to seek FCC regulatory changes on this matter for at least two years.
6.  The new bandplan doesn't have any "power" over US hams, and but remember we should follow bandplans if we are to be good amateurs.

I'm very disappointed in the League on this issue.  I recently wrote and submitted an Op-Ed piece summarizing this whole business to QST.  I hope you will help it l be published quickly so at least some information about this issue can reach the members.

Steve WD8DAS


- - - - - - - -




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 17, 2007, 01:27:54 PM
There has been an interesting uncanned exchange of e-mails between my buddy Larry/W8ER and Joel Harrison/W5ZN (ARRL President) posted at: http://www.amham.com/

I don't see how the ARRL President couldn't be more clear in his response, dated 11/17/07, at the link mentioned in the above quote. Paragraph's 3 and 6 are most interesting.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 17, 2007, 02:39:11 PM
Quote
I don’t believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation, though.

I guess he and the ARRL will be petitioning the FCC to change or remove the following section of Part 97.

Quote
97.307(a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.


Have these guys even read Part 97?






Response to WD8DAS from ARRL President:

- - - - - - - - -

Hi Steve,

We believe amateur radio operators should exercise good operating practice by using our allocated spectrum efficiently, so a recommendation in a voluntary band plan is a good thing and we hope radio amateurs would use it as a guideline for their operating preferences.

I don?t believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation, though.

Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always, is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from all sources, including the AM community, and we will continue to work toward the best possible band plan for the entire region, as well as to continue to recognize existing modes of operation in the United States in our band plans.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 18, 2007, 12:10:25 PM
ARRL people are circling the wagons.

They have persuaded the non-U.S. delegates in Region 2 to discontinue answering questions about the plan if they come from U.S. licensees.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k1qar on November 18, 2007, 01:29:49 PM
                                                  ROTTEN    RADIO 

I recently corresponded with the ARRL regulatory department head, Dan Henderson, regarding a new IARU  HF “voluntary” band plan.  He asked that I share my concerns with Dave Sumner, who also failed to explain how it would help amateur radio.
 
I appreciate the hard work the League has been doing to protect our hobby, especially the new 500 kHz band and CW practice transmissions.  However, evidence continues to surface that the league may be responsible for the 2700 Hz limit in the IARU band plan as part of a sneaky campaign for eventual enforcement of a similar US bandwidth rule.

President Harrison’s words on this subject to Gary, W7EK, were, “...On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules....”       ARRL history with RM 9259, however, reveals an opposite intent: “…The ARRL also request we [FCC] declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accordance with good amateur practice….”  As we all know, “good amateur practice” is the current FCC law.

This duplicity raises the question whether ARRL “no longer adequately represents the interests” of US hams, a sin punishable by termination of the League’s membership in IARU (Article II, paragraph 11C, IARU constitution).

It gets more rotten.  If successful, this ARRL request will effectively outlaw AM and FM as we know it, and any future wideband data below 28 MHz.  AM operators, which are the epicenters of technical on-air discussions, now are suddenly finding their considerable equipment investment in jeopardy.  What the League seeks would also stop work on data modes wider than 2700 cycles, which often do not increase crowding, as the increased bandwidth is offset by proportionately less occupancy time.  It would kill, for example, wide band data emergency communications that reduce battery drain and save first responders’ time.  A stated ARRL objective, to entice internet-savvy youth into the hobby, would be enhanced by development of  TCP/IP over HF.   The bandwidth for this robust content such as GIF images would likewise be prohibited.
In addition, the crowding-control benefits of the band plan appear largely transitory.  As new 2700 cycle compliant equipment is sold to the coming cohort of no-code licensees, and older equipment wears out, the band plan’s objective would naturally come to pass.
Once again, the question is raised whether ARRL is acting “contrary to the interests of amateur radio” (Article II section 11B), another sin punishable by termination of its IARU membership.

It may be time to apply the Wouff Hong, lest T.O.M. spin in his grave.


Ted Robinson,  K1QAR


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 02:11:55 PM
ARRL people are circling the wagons.

You sure it's ARRL people that are circling the wagons ??? ;D

Quote
They have persuaded the non-U.S. delegates in Region 2 to discontinue answering questions about the plan if they come from U.S. licensees.

And, you know this how??


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 02:24:44 PM
                                                  ROTTEN    RADIO 
President Harrison’s words on this subject to Gary, W7EK, were, “...On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules....”       ARRL history with RM 9259, however, reveals an opposite intent: “…The ARRL also request we [FCC] declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accordance with good amateur practice….”  As we all know, “good amateur practice” is the current FCC law.

Since the FCC already indicated in a legal ruling 9 years ago that they were not interested in considering voluntary band plans as part of any going forward legal ruling, why would the ARRL consider it again in such a short time frame. That makes no sense and serves no purpose for all U. S. amateurs.

Quote
It gets more rotten.  If successful, this ARRL request will effectively outlaw AM and FM as we know it, and any future wideband data below 28 MHz.  AM operators, which are the epicenters of technical on-air discussions, now are suddenly finding their considerable equipment investment in jeopardy.  What the League seeks would also stop work on data modes wider than 2700 cycles, which often do not increase crowding, as the increased bandwidth is offset by proportionately less occupancy time.  It would kill, for example, wide band data emergency communications that reduce battery drain and save first responders’ time.  A stated ARRL objective, to entice internet-savvy youth into the hobby, would be enhanced by development of  TCP/IP over HF.   The bandwidth for this robust content such as GIF images would likewise be prohibited.
In addition, the crowding-control benefits of the band plan appear largely transitory.  As new 2700 cycle compliant equipment is sold to the coming cohort of no-code licensees, and older equipment wears out, the band plan’s objective would naturally come to pass.
Once again, the question is raised whether ARRL is acting “contrary to the interests of amateur radio” (Article II section 11B), another sin punishable by termination of its IARU membership.

Ted Robinson,  K1QAR

All the more reason the ARRL would not consider the revised voluntary Region 2 band plan as gospel for any future proposed FCC ruling.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 18, 2007, 03:02:08 PM
"why would the ARRL consider it again in such a short time frame"?

Perhaps because they are now focused on an involuntary bandplan plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 03:17:43 PM
"why would the ARRL consider it again in such a short time frame"?

Perhaps because they are now focused on an involuntary bandplan plan.

Since several ARRL officials have already stated in e-mail responses back to numerous people that is not the case, including the Harrison response posted on 11/17/07 (here http://www.amham.com/ (http://www.amham.com/)), your statement seems to be based not on anything factual.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 18, 2007, 03:45:37 PM
Pete said:
Quote
Since several ARRL officials have already stated in e-mail responses back to numerous people that is not the case, including the Harrison response posted on 11/17/07 (here http://www.amham.com/), your statement seems to be based not on anything factual.

Well ok Pete, then who is the liar here? The guy from Brazil that stated that it was being pushed by the ARRgghhL or Sumner and company? Since I haven't been screwed over by anyone in Brazil, my money is the lamebrains in Newington that you tend to hold high upon a pedestal.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 18, 2007, 04:34:53 PM

How can we "believe" what the officials are telling us when they have provided several conflicting messages on this subject?

ARRL Directors and Officials have told me, in writing, variously:

(A)  ARRL voted in favor of the new bandplan, and it is intended for US amateurs to follow as well as the rest of the hemisphere.   
       versus
(B)  The new bandplan won't have any impact on operations in the US.  It is only meant for "the other countries in the region".

      and

(X)  The ARRL won't seek FCC regulatory changes to include bandwidth for the next two years.
       versus
(Y) The ARRL has no plans to seek FCC regulatory changes on this matter.
      versus
(Z) The ARRL hopes to secure FCC regulatory changes on this matter as soon as practical.

What *is* their position? 

Put these varying answers in the context of the League's recent attempt to get the FCC to put bandwidth controls into the regulations, and after that failed, the announcement in print that the ARRL will revisit this issue, and the absolute silence on the Region 2 bandplan revision planning and development until it was voted on and a done-deal, and it smells pretty bad. 

The highly defensive responses from League officials to my initial gentle and respectful inquiries was not reassuring - when people react like that it is usually because they are very sorry you discovered what they were hiding.

Steve WD8DAS





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 04:38:49 PM
Well ok Pete, then who is the liar here? The guy from Brazil that stated that it was being pushed by the ARRgghhL or Sumner and company? Since I haven't been screwed over by anyone in Brazil, my money is the lamebrains in Newington that you tend to hold high upon a pedestal.

Maybe you should read paragraph 3 (again?) of the Harrison response, dated 11/17/07, http://www.amham.com/ (http://www.amham.com/) and look for the misrepresentation somewhere else.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 18, 2007, 04:50:15 PM
Pete said:
Quote
Maybe you should read paragraph 3 (again?) of the Harrison response, dated 11/17/07, http://www.amham.com/ and look for the misrepresentation somewhere else.

Hmmm, I don't recall that Harrison was in attendance at the conference. Could it be that Sumner has his hand behind his shirt telling him what to say since Steve, WD8DAS, continues to hold their feet to the fire? Why can't Mr. Mouth-piece answer with simple yes or no answers? Why can't he be direct instead of trying to spin and evade those questions that have been put forth? That is why I'll believe what my dog is trying to tell me before I believe anything that comes out of Newington or their cronies!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 18, 2007, 04:50:44 PM
Could you state your case another way, Pete?  I don't understand what you are getting at...

I have read the paragraph you cite, Pete, several times.  It simply does not jive with my own experiences.  I don't know anything about a "U.S. radio amateur" that is "misrepresenting his comments".    I don't know anything about any phone calls to any officials -  I am going by the responses I received from ARRL and IARU officials after I wrote to them expressing my opinions and asking for more information.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 18, 2007, 05:43:43 PM
I look forward to when Pete starts posting some answers on here with a name and a quote attached to them.

I'm getting tired of doing his work for him   ; )

Seriously, Pete, why not obtain some answers on our behalf?
They trust you, you know them, and you seem to have some kind of interest in the subject matter. Do the League a favor and clear this all up for us, eh?

You want a list?

If they won't directly answer you, then you don't need us to tell you that they aren't giving straight answers, and you will be satisfied, at least in theory.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W9ZSL on November 18, 2007, 07:09:25 PM
Hi! Am an OT Ham who let his license expire, but nearing retirement I will get it back. AM is my baby. Was a broadcaster for 40+ years and intend to use parts from our old BC-1T to build a rig. Now we have this crap. It seems to me that some powers that be would religate AM to the same scrap heap as spark gaps. Ditto SSB vs. Digital. Am I wrong in my thinking, or should I continue to build my dream XMTR? I already scored a cherry Heath DX-60 for a driver and have the HW-10 RCVR to match. I also have a Kenwood 440 XCVR which is being restored, but the vibes I get from this thread is even this might exceed the insane bandwith restrictions proposed. Am I right or wrong?  Mike/Passage/ ex-K9ZSL.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 18, 2007, 08:27:10 PM
BUILD IT  !!
BUILD IT !!!
BUILD IT !!!

Don't let them get you down.

A lot of things have changed for the League in the past 20 years, for one thing, they have only 20 percent of license base as subscribers anymore. Can you believe it?

Yet, they act as if they are the kingdom and we are the pawns.

I DON'T THINK SO.
Get on with us soon and help show them otherwise.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 18, 2007, 08:53:26 PM
One can find some interesting reading in the editorials of the old ham magazines.  In the early 30's there was controversy surrounding the League, much as there is to-day.  One of the chief criticisms was that it was run secretively, and secretary K.B. Warner drew fire similar to Sumner to-day, regarding his allegedly autocratic management style.  So what else is new?

In one news item from 1933, it was said that the League comprised only about 30 percent of the licence base at that time.

There was substantial rivalry between ARRL and the west coast publications RADIO and R/9, which merged into one publication in January, 1936.  I have an original copy of a letter between Robert Parmentier, who was the chief lab technician an HQ and also chief operator of W1MK (the predecessor to W1AW), and the editor of RADIO, regarding an article that Bob had submitted for publication in RADIO.  There were a  few jabs at the League, and the writer referred to League HQ personnel as "Warner and the little Warnerettes".  I knew Bob personally in his later years, and I found the letter in some old stuff his wife had given to me after he went to the nursing home in the mid 1980's.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 09:33:12 PM
Could you state your case another way, Pete?  I don't understand what you are getting at...

I have read the paragraph you cite, Pete, several times.  It simply does not jive with my own experiences.  I don't know anything about a "U.S. radio amateur" that is "misrepresenting his comments".    I don't know anything about any phone calls to any officials -  I am going by the responses I received from ARRL and IARU officials after I wrote to them expressing my opinions and asking for more information.

Steve WD8DAS

Actually Steve, my response "read the paragraph" was in response to SLK's post which preceded your post.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 10:07:22 PM

How can we "believe" what the officials are telling us when they have provided several conflicting messages on this subject?

ARRL Directors and Officials have told me, in writing, variously:

(A)  ARRL voted in favor of the new bandplan, and it is intended for US amateurs to follow as well as the rest of the hemisphere.   
       versus
(B)  The new bandplan won't have any impact on operations in the US.  It is only meant for "the other countries in the region".

For A: If some amateurs in the U. S. want to follow the revised Region 2 voluntary band plan in part due to their typical operating habits, I see no problem with that.

For B: The FCC administrates all the rules and regulations that U. S. amateurs must follow. I have yet to see a FCC Report and Order that will change our rules and regulations on 1/1/08 that defines specific bandwidth limitations.


 
Quote
     and

(X)  The ARRL won't seek FCC regulatory changes to include bandwidth for the next two years.
       versus
(Y) The ARRL has no plans to seek FCC regulatory changes on this matter.
      versus
(Z) The ARRL hopes to secure FCC regulatory changes on this matter as soon as practical.

What *is* their position? 

Put these varying answers in the context of the League's recent attempt to get the FCC to put bandwidth controls into the regulations, and after that failed, the announcement in print that the ARRL will revisit this issue, and the absolute silence on the Region 2 bandplan revision planning and development until it was voted on and a done-deal, and it smells pretty bad. 

The highly defensive responses from League officials to my initial gentle and respectful inquiries was not reassuring - when people react like that it is usually because they are very sorry you discovered what they were hiding.

Steve WD8DAS

For X: Gee, I thought I said something like that but I was just speculating.
For Y & Z: At the BoD Meeting, July 20-21, 2007 and Executive Committee Meetings Sep. 27, 2007, and Oct. 6, 2007, the only mention of "regulation by bandwidth" was this at the BoD Meeting:
"36. Under agenda item 10, “Any other business” the Chair led the Board in a discussion regarding the recently withdrawn petition to segment the amateur bands based upon signal bandwidth, what has been learned from the experience, and what needs to be considered if the effort is resurrected in the future."

I would suspect that maybe they may not view this a "good time" to consider any new proposal on any type of regulation by bandwidth. So maybe regulation by bandwidth might be considered at some future time when member/nonmember input may lead to a more practical proposal.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 18, 2007, 10:09:51 PM
I look forward to when Pete starts posting some answers on here with a name and a quote attached to them.

I'm getting tired of doing his work for him   ; )

Seriously, Pete, why not obtain some answers on our behalf?
They trust you, you know them, and you seem to have some kind of interest in the subject matter. Do the League a favor and clear this all up for us, eh?

You want a list?

If they won't directly answer you, then you don't need us to tell you that they aren't giving straight answers, and you will be satisfied, at least in theory.

Sorry, you're on your own on this one.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 18, 2007, 10:56:02 PM

Pete, I'm sorry, but I can only hope that you haven't read the various ARRL directors' and officials' messages we've passed along.  That would explain why your ideas on League motives seem to be based on how you'd *like* things to be, rather than how they actually are as represented by the words and deeds of the officials and directors themselves.

For example, you said:

>Gee, I thought I said something like that but I was just speculating.

But the quote in question was actually said straight-out by the Central Division ARRL Director.   Why would it matter what you were speculating upon?  Much more important are the actual words and deeds of the people involved.

If on, the other hand, you *have* read the information I've passed along, then I'm left to think that it is more important for you to help the League save face than to help ensure that we have sensible bandplans and regulations. 

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 18, 2007, 11:01:54 PM

"Passage" wrote:

>Hi! Am an OT Ham... AM is my baby. Was a broadcaster
>for 40+ years and intend to use parts from our old
>BC-1T to build a rig. Now we have this crap.

AM is quite popular on the bands, much more so than for the past couple decades.  Don't hesitate to get back on the air and build that big rig.  We are have huge fun with AM on the bands right now. 

That's one reason why we are so vocal and firm in our opposition to the various attempts to hurt AM.  But we also see the importance of keeping our bandplans and regulations open and flexible, allowing a wide variety of modes both old and new. 

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 12:25:00 AM

Pete, I'm sorry, but I can only hope that you haven't read the various ARRL directors' and officials' messages we've passed along.  That would explain why your ideas on League motives seem to be based on how you'd *like* things to be, rather than how they actually are as represented by the words and deeds of the officials and directors themselves.

Actually, I've read them all, plus a few additional that you probably haven't seen. I believe, based on the responses I read, I've satisfied with the ARRL response with the exception of the Central Director's (probably due to lack of meds) initial response. I got his pitch but his choice of words and presentation was bad. I know what rules govern my amateur radio activities. I don't try to speculate what might happen further down an indeterminate road in some undefined time frame.

And in my opinion, some people ask a question; don't like the response or it doesn't agree with their mindset; and so they ask it again; and on and on.


Quote
For example, you said:

>Gee, I thought I said something like that but I was just speculating.

But the quote in question was actually said straight-out by the Central Division ARRL Director.   Why would it matter what you were speculating upon?  Much more important are the actual words and deeds of the people involved.

If on, the other hand, you *have* read the information I've passed along, then I'm left to think that it is more important for you to help the League save face than to help ensure that we have sensible bandplans and regulations. 

Steve WD8DAS

Actually, I said it twice, once on amradio.whatever, where I speculated probably in latter part of 2008 they might intro a new regulation by bandwidth, and in this thread "Reply 275", where I said: Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".

With the voluntary Region 2 band plan, I see no reason for the ARRL to "save face". They have responded to the issue in question (Region 2 new band plan). While I will agree that some words, phrases, etc. may not have been entirely consistent from response to response, I believe that may be due to the writer's style rather then not knowing the topic or trying to hide something. 

Besides, the ARRL already has a published voluntary band plan, that many amateurs already use, that's been around for years, and we already have FCC regulations (sensible or not is a matter of personal opinion) that govern our amateur radio operating and obviously take precedent over any voluntary Region 2 band plan or any other voluntary band plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 19, 2007, 05:23:23 AM
Quote
I'm satisfied with the ARRL response

Glad to read this Pete. I bet the League is happy to read it too.
I guess that means you won't be asking for any kind of details past what they've given you?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 19, 2007, 07:49:28 AM
Pete said:
Quote
Actually, I've read them all, plus a few additional that you probably haven't seen. I believe, based on the responses I read, I've satisfied with the ARRL response with the exception of the Central Director's (probably due to lack of meds) initial response. I got his pitch but his choice of words and presentation was bad. I know what rules govern my amateur radio activities. I don't try to speculate what might happen further down an indeterminate road in some undefined time frame.

Boy, I'm glad I was sitting down when I read THAT!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 19, 2007, 09:17:02 AM

Pete, I envy you in your faith.  I wish I could be so trusting... life would be so much simpler...

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 02:37:15 PM

Pete, I envy you in your faith.  I wish I could be so trusting... life would be so much simpler...

Steve WD8DAS

Remember. this is "hobby radio". I don't let it dictate my life's activities but I do believe that periodic churn and change within the hobby is a good thing.

Over the last several years, the ARRL has had to come away with the lesson that they can no longer operate in a true vacuum. Any of their activities, proposals, meetings and decisions made with other international radio organizations, and anything else they do that affects the U. S. amateur community, is going to come under "our" scrutiny.

Generally, my first point of contact is my Director and then move up from there, depending upon the issue or concern. Directors need to assume the responsibility, since their position should dictate that they do, to propagate all issues and concerns in a timely manner between their respective amateur radio community and the senior management.

Relative to the new voluntary Region 2 band plan, in hindsight, they(ARRL) probably would have saved themselves some grief if they had posted a blurb on their Amateur Radio News section of their homepage outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community. They did publish a blurb in their weekly ARRL Letter that a revised Region 2 band plan had been approved but did not substantiate it with any real details.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 02:38:07 PM
Pete said:
Quote
Actually, I've read them all, plus a few additional that you probably haven't seen. I believe, based on the responses I read, I've satisfied with the ARRL response with the exception of the Central Director's (probably due to lack of meds) initial response. I got his pitch but his choice of words and presentation was bad. I know what rules govern my amateur radio activities. I don't try to speculate what might happen further down an indeterminate road in some undefined time frame.

Boy, I'm glad I was sitting down when I read THAT!

I hope it didn't hurt. ;D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 02:47:43 PM
Quote
I'm satisfied with the ARRL response

Glad to read this Pete. I bet the League is happy to read it too.
I guess that means you won't be asking for any kind of details past what they've given you?

Nope and what's the point

However, you and I both know that anyone can write a request for proposed rule-making to the FCC, so some periodic diligence in reviewing daily activities on the FCC site is probably a good thing. Ya never know who might get the bright idea to pitch a new proposal to the FCC that would affect amateur radio current activities.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 19, 2007, 02:58:15 PM
Quote
outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community.

Explain to me why the club's initial notice to constituents would be the results, rather than the planning, ahead of the Region 2 vote.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 19, 2007, 03:08:07 PM
Pete said:
Quote
Generally, my first point of contact is my Director and then move up from there, depending upon the issue or concern. Directors need to assume the responsibility, since their position should dictate that they do, to propagate all issues and concerns in a timely manner between their respective amateur radio community and the senior management.

This wasn't a typical ARRgghhL issue. This was a nationwide issue that is critical to all hams, regardless if they are members of the (be)League(d) or not. They are speaking on behalf of all hams in the USA even though the true membership is roughly 20~25% of the ham radio population.

Pete went on to say:
Quote
They did publish a blurb in their weekly ARRL Letter that a revised Region 2 band plan had been approved but did not substantiate it with any real details.

What they needed to do was put out a true 'QST' in the sense of the meaning of the abreviation. They know where all the hams post. A posting to eHam or QRZ.com from "HQ" would have gotten the ball rolling. But as you have noted, they didn't put anything out with any details on their letter. So this demonstrates to me they were not being forthright even with their own membership!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 03:11:58 PM
Quote
outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community.

Explain to me why the club's initial notice to constituents would be the results, rather than the planning, ahead of the Region 2 vote.

The main thrust for a revised International Region 2 band plan was to follow the basic style and format of the current Region 1 band plan. Since in the U. S., FCC rules and regulations take precedent over any voluntary band plans (1998 Ruling, RM-9259), what point would be served in any domestic U. S. amateur input/discussion, planning, socialization, etc. U. S. amateurs are not governed legally by voluntary band plans.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 03:34:16 PM
This wasn't a typical ARRgghhL issue. This was a nationwide issue that is critical to all hams, regardless if they are members of the (be)League(d) or not. They are speaking on behalf of all hams in the USA even though the true membership is roughly 20~25% of the ham radio population.

It's a voluntary band plan. How can a voluntary band plan be critical to all hams? That makes no sense.

Quote
What they needed to do was put out a true 'QST' in the sense of the meaning of the abreviation. They know where all the hams post. A posting to eHam or QRZ.com from "HQ" would have gotten the ball rolling. But as you have noted, they didn't put anything out with any details on their letter. So this demonstrates to me they were not being forthright even with their own membership!

Both of the places you mentioned are well-known troll meccas. I would never expect, nor tolerate, as an ARRL member for them to post active dialog on those two sites, much less any other site, other than their own. We have our own history here on this site when a staff member tried to engage in active dialog with our own members.

The weekly ARRL Letter is e-mailed to over 66,000 recipients. Although brief, the revised voluntary Region 2 band plan approval notice did get out to all of them. The ARRL Letter is also posted each week on the non-members side of their web site. It's also available on the ARRL Audio News. If you only get all your amateur news from QRZ and e-ham, you're most likely missing a lot.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 19, 2007, 03:41:43 PM
Quote
what point would be served in any domestic U. S. amateur input/discussion,
Please explain why the League would take part in the discussion in Brazil. Does Rinaldo somehow have a better perspective than any domestic U.S. amateur?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 03:57:45 PM
Quote
what point would be served in any domestic U. S. amateur input/discussion,
Please explain why the League would take part in the discussion in Brazil. Does Rinaldo somehow have a better perspective than any domestic U.S. amateur?

You're making me laugh ;D
If you don't know the answers to your own questions, then your entire pitch for the last 1 1/2  months makes no sense.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 19, 2007, 04:00:06 PM
OK, I take it that you acknowledge Rinaldo has no real say in the IARU Region 2 matter, since the U.S. is not a participant.

Or else you're admitting that he provided input that is in conflict with the intentions of the ARRL (to ignore the Region 2 Plan).

Which way do you want it ?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox)
PARADOX
1.   a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2.   a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3.   any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4.   an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 19, 2007, 04:36:39 PM
To: Delegates and representatives, International Amateur Radio Union
From: Concerned amateur licensee W. Perry Wheless, K4CWW
P.O. Box 11134
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
Email k4cww
Subject:

REQUEST TO AMEND

(PDF attached)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 19, 2007, 06:42:47 PM
From   Larry Robison
to   w5zn@arrl.org,
date   Nov 17, 2007 12:17 PM
subject   Re: REQUEST TO AMEND THE IARU Region 2 BAND PLAN
   
Joel,

Thanks again. I have read your reply carefully several times. If you
read your reply carefully, you might understand my concern.

While you state that there are no current specific plans to recommend
the adoption of the strict standards of bandwidth set forth in the IARU
Region 2 bandplan, you cannot or do not commit that the ARRL will not
seek such restrictions in the future! You all but admit that such a move
is possible. Considering that the Preamble to the IARU Band Plan
suggests that you recommend this plan to the regulatory agency for your
country, and that the ARRL has already expressed it's desire to write
bandwidth control into Part 97, your statement regarding the ARRL's
position is highly suspect!

I would also ask you to look at the roots of the previous attempt to
institute bandwidth control. There was a Board meeting several years ago
where, out of the blue, the ARRL Directors agreed to recommend bandwidth
regulation to the FCC, at the earliest possible opportunity.  It was a
quick vote rammed through without discussion and certainly no
information about such a recommendation to it's members! I was an ARRL
member at that time and can attest to the lack of any warning about such
a move to it's members. This was a very massive issue and arrogant for
the ARRL to make such a move without total membership involvement. It
was vigorously supported by Rinaldo and Sumner and while it failed, I do
not think that they have changed their minds, nor do I think that they
intend to fail again. Please point out the flaw in my thinking!

Let's be specific Joel ...

1) Are you in touch with the sentiment on this issue, as pertains to the
ARRL executives responsible for RM-11306, i.e.  Rinaldo and Sumner
2) Despite telephone conversations et all, do you deny that the ARRL and
Rinaldo (specifically) were responsible for the proposed bandwidth
limits in Brazil?
3) Do you understand that your statements to me indicate that you and
the ARRL, as an IARU member, has no plans to follow the IARU
recommendations, even though you contend that you had no leading role in
their drafting?
4) Do you understand  that the Central Division Director, which I deem
"a loose cannon", publicly displayed extreme attitudes on this and is
doing damage to the ARRL as a result? I would hope a full apology would
be forthcoming for his rant.
5) Can you understand our informed reluctance to swallow the "no
ulterior motive" position that you now espouse?

I would invite you to provide specific answers to the above 5 questions.
A complete record of our email communication is published on
http://amham.com/ . I have formatted, not edited the exchange.

Regards
--Larry W8ER



Personally I believe that you are trying

Joel Harrison wrote:
> Larry,
>
> Thank you for seeking a clarification of our position regarding the IARU
> Region 2 band plan.
>
> RM-11306 was withdrawn by ARRL and there are no plans to resubmit it or a
> version of it. Any decision to do so would be at the direction of the ARRL
> Board of Directors. While the board could decide to revisit the concept at
> anytime in the future, I can tell you there is no plan, or even discussion,
> for doing so. Please understand, though, that the IARU Region 2 band plan
> has absolutely no connection whatsoever with RM-11306 and any rumor
> suggesting such is false...period!
>
> In addition, the ARRL did not "push" for any specific item in the band plan.
> Comments suggesting such are blatantly false and are being distributed by a
> U.S. radio amateur that is misrepresenting comments from an IARU Region 2
> officer he spoke with on the telephone. I spoke with this IARU Region 2
> officer in person two weeks ago and he is very upset that this U.S. radio
> amateur is misrepresenting his comments. What we did was to cooperate with
> several other countries to develop a general band plan that would best fit
> the entire region, understanding there will be some differences with band
> plans in specific countries and in those cases the local band plan takes
> precedence. Also, many countries do not have any regulation of their amateur
> radio allocations by emission designator, bandwidth, or anything and they
> look to a band plan for guidance. That, of course, is not the case in the
> United States where we have our amateur radio allocations regulated by
> emission designator.
>
> The IARU Region 2 band plan is in no way a move by ARRL to adopt regulation
> by bandwidth in the United States. The two are not connected in any way and
> any suggestion of such is false. We have no regulation by bandwidth petition
> proposed or planned subsequent to the withdrawal of RM-11306.
>
> Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document
> that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always,
> is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from
> all sources, including the AM community, and we will continue to work toward
> the best possible band plan for the entire region, as well as to continue to
> recognize existing modes of operation in the United States in our band plans
> which includes, and for me will always include, AM operation.
>
> You are free to distribute this reply as long as you distribute it in its
> entirety and do not cut or paste parts in an attempt to misrepresent its
> contents as has been happening recently by certain individuals in the AM
> community.
>
> Thanks again for seeking a clarification of our position, Larry. ARRL is in
> no way attempting to eliminate or restrict AM operation in the United
> States.
>
> 73 Joel W5ZN
> ARRL President


from   Larry Robison
to   w5zn@arrl.org,
date   Nov 13, 2007 9:17 PM
subject   Re: REQUEST TO AMEND THE IARU Region 2 BAND PLAN   
      
Reply
   
   Joel,

Thank you for your reply.

Please allow me to be direct. While the IARU Region 2 bandplan does not
eliminate AM as a mode it does suggest limitations that are
unacceptable. Recently the ARRL submitted a proposal to the FCC to
establish regulation by bandwidth (RM-11306) in Part 97 of the FCC
rules. It is very obviously a goal that your organization deems
important, despite your protest to the contrary.  None of us contend
that the proposed IARU band plan for Region 2 contains regulation for
the US amateur. We are not naive enough to believe however that the ARRL
would push such restrictions in such an international forum without reason.

Would you be willing to clearly state that the ARRL will not seek any
form of bandwidth regulation in the United States and most certainly
would not point to the IARU Region 2 bandplan acceptance of such
restrictions as being a model? Doing so would surely calm my fears!

Be assured that your reply will be distributed broadly to the entire US
AM community.

--Larry Robison, W8ER


Joel Harrison wrote:
> Larry,
>
> Thank you for letting me know of your concerns with regard to the band plan
> adopted recently by the member-societies of IARU Region 2. You sent your
> message to a number of individuals; because the ARRL is the representative
> organization in the IARU for radio amateurs of the United States, I am
> replying on their behalf.
> IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are
> developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU
> member-societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines that are
> intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited
> frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory
> authority. On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans
> to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue
> of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended
> more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be
> counterproductive.
>
> The new IARU Region 2 band plan was developed by delegates to the Region 2
> Conference from a number of countries. It does not align in every respect
> either with the FCC rules or with operating patterns followed by US
> amateurs. Unlike the United States, most countries do not have regulations
> setting out subbands for different types of emission. Even in the US the FCC
> rules do not provide much detail with regard to frequency use. As FCC
> amateur licensees we are obliged to cooperate with one another in selecting
> transmitting channels and making the most effective use of amateur service
> frequencies, and to follow good engineering and good amateur practice.
>
> Your message objects to the Region 2 band plan for "suggesting limits that
> are more severe than regulations from the governments in the region."
> However, the band plan does not contain "limits." As voluntary guidelines
> the band plan cannot by definition be "more severe" than regulations. And
> finally, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a
> subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.
> Your message refers to IARU President Larry Price as wishing "to discourage
> footnotes among the various regional plans he oversees." First, the IARU
> President does not "oversee" regional band plans. Each regional plan is
> developed by the member-societies of that region, in accordance with the
> constitution, bylaws and rules of the regional organization. The regional
> organizations are autonomous entities and do not answer to the IARU
> President. Second, Mr. Price's observation with regard to footnotes had
> nothing whatsoever to do with IARU band plans. Footnotes are not by their
> nature either good or bad; it depends on what they say. Mr. Price's
> observation had to do specifically with footnotes in the ITU Table of
> Frequency Allocations that prohibit amateur operation, or authorize sharing
> by additional services, in certain countries in certain parts of the bands
> that are allocated in the ITU Table to the amateur service. One of the goals
> of the IARU is to minimize such footnotes. On the other hand, there are
> other footnotes to the ITU Table that are extremely beneficial to Amateur
> Radio, such as the ones permitting amateur-satellite operation. In any case
> this is totally unrelated to IARU band planning activities, which are
> internal to the amateur service and to each regional IARU organization and
> have nothing whatever to do with the ITU.
>
> I hope this has reassured you that nothing will happen on January 1 that
> will in any way affect your use of AM. We are always seeking ways to improve
> the process of revision of the IARU Region 2 band plan and the ARRL Board of
> Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL's input to IARU Region 2, are
> always open to member input on future revisions that ARRL delegates may take
> to future Region 2 Conferences. I encourage you to communicate with the
> Division Director in your ARRL Division.
>
> Sincere 73,
>
> Joel Harrison, W5ZN
> ARRL President
>
>


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 19, 2007, 07:49:01 PM
Quote
Over the last several years, the ARRL has had to come away with the lesson that they can no longer operate in a true vacuum.

I don't think they have learned that lesson. Otherwise the ARRL wouldn't be involved in their current mistake - the IARU bandplan.


Quote

It's a voluntary band plan. How can a voluntary band plan be critical to all hams? That makes no sense.


Then it also makes no sense for the ARRL to be involved in creating and so vociferously defending it. It can't be both ways.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 19, 2007, 08:26:31 PM
"To retain respect for sausages and regulations, one must not watch them in the making."

-Otto von Bismarck


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 19, 2007, 09:11:47 PM
From   Larry Robison
to   w5zn@arrl.org,
date   Nov 17, 2007 12:17 PM
subject   Re: REQUEST TO AMEND THE IARU Region 2 BAND PLAN
   ...................

This entire exchange was reported here on Reply 356 on Sat, Nov. 17 by W9AD, by pointing to the web site where it was all posted. I believe all of our members have the ability to click on the link that W9AD provided.

I don't see anything new here so is there a point you're trying to bring out by bringing the entire exchange here?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 20, 2007, 07:36:21 AM
Thanks for playing, Pete.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on November 20, 2007, 09:28:17 AM
Quote
Ya never know who might get the bright idea to pitch a new proposal to the FCC that would affect amateur radio current activities.

So the status-quo will always be acceptable ??? OR.... any proposal not to your liking indicates the authors are "less (fill in the blank)" than you or the ARRL ????

Quote
However, the band plan does not contain "limits."

He's playing with terms here. There are "limits" SUGGESTED in the R2BP. Perhaps any further references in letters to these guys should contain "suggested". It's significant because suggestions do become reality from time to time.

Quote
I don't see anything new here so is there a point you're trying to bring out by bringing the entire exchange here?

Bringing it here makes it easier to reference in context.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 01:30:12 PM
Quote
Ya never know who might get the bright idea to pitch a new proposal to the FCC that would affect amateur radio current activities.

So the status-quo will always be acceptable ??? OR.... any proposal not to your liking indicates the authors are "less (fill in the blank)" than you or the ARRL ????

That's your decision, and hopefully based on "accurate" and "complete" information that's made available to you.

Quote
Quote
However, the band plan does not contain "limits."

He's playing with terms here. There are "limits" SUGGESTED in the R2BP. Perhaps any further references in letters to these guys should contain "suggested". It's significant because suggestions do become reality from time to time.

Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Quote
Quote
I don't see anything new here so is there a point you're trying to bring out by bringing the entire exchange here?

Bringing it here makes it easier to reference in context.

OK, I have no problem with that. Maybe then someone can address Mr. Harrison's allegations from November 17, in Paragraph's 3 and 6:
Paragraph 3: In addition...
Paragraph 6 You are free...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 01:35:00 PM
Thanks for playing, Pete.

Of course, one must remember that tampering with people's emotions is never a great play sport.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 20, 2007, 01:54:39 PM
Hmmmm, they must have turned off their email machines. I have yet to receive a response from Sumner, Rinaldo, or Price with an answer to my three questions. ???


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 20, 2007, 02:21:03 PM
Don't feel special, Mikey, they haven't answered mine, either.

1. Details of the ARRL policy established for the Region 2 Band Plan by the Board of Directors ahead of the Brazil meeting.

2. The basis, political authority, or other permission for Rinaldo to suggest any elements of the proposed plan, since the ARRL does not intend to comply with the plan.

3. The basis for the ARRL to endorse the plan if it does not intend to comply with it.

4. Other questions expressed.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on November 20, 2007, 02:47:38 PM
Quote
Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Actually Pete, It's nice to be able to give it a lift or shoot it down before it gets to that point.
As a public representative of Amateur Radio the League would be wise to test float their balloons more than they do.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 03:09:44 PM
Quote
Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Actually Pete, It's nice to be able to give it a lift or shoot it down before it gets to that point.
As a public representative of Amateur Radio the League would be wise to test float their balloons more than they do.

I have no argument with your statement, but in the case of this thread and issue, it wasn't ultimately their balloon to float.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 20, 2007, 03:35:02 PM
Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference.. Even as a common courtesy. Doing so might have settled things long before now.

Seriously- I'm not the only one feeling treated like a mushroom because of how this was handled.
THAT'S the perception problem with Newington, if nothing else.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 03:46:30 PM
Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference.. Even as a common courtesy. Doing so might have settled things long before now.

Seriously- I'm not the only one feeling treated like a mushroom because of how this was handled.
THAT'S the perception problem with Newington, if nothing else.

It was posted in the ARRL Letter (distribution over 66,000), dated September 21, 2007. That's where I saw it prior to KYV's initial post. It wasn't a big deal then since it's a voluntary band plan and targeted mostly for the International Region 2 countries that wanted it modeled after the Region 1 band plan.
The ARRL Letter said:
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined
technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF
matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico
City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary
adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region
2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008.
The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with
regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to
reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing
an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention
of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was
approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive
Committee.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 20, 2007, 04:05:49 PM
Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference.. Even as a common courtesy. Doing so might have settled things long before now.

Seriously- I'm not the only one feeling treated like a mushroom because of how this was handled.
THAT'S the perception problem with Newington, if nothing else.

It was posted in the ARRL Letter (distribution over 66,000), dated September 21, 2007. That's where I saw it prior to KYV's initial post. It wasn't a big deal then since it's a voluntary band plan and targeted mostly for the International Region 2 countries that wanted it modeled after the Region 1 band plan.
The ARRL Letter said:
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined
technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF
matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico
City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary
adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region
2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008.
The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with
regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to
reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing
an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention
of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was
approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive
Committee.


Pete, limiting the publicity to the ARRL Letter isn't what I'd call a very wide dissemination of information regarding the matter. That's not a whole heck of a lot more effective than using the bulletins on W1AW to do so.

For a group of supposedly communications-savvy individuals to claim otherwise in this era of the internet is ridiculous.

Let me suggest to you that if the League wanted to deliberately cause misunderstandings, or get folks thinking that vital information is being deliberately withheld, they couldn't have found a better way than how this is being handled.

Do you subscribe to the "...if it quacks like a duck and if it walks like a duck..It might very well be a duck" theory of logic? If not, can you understand how such could be the case with many folks?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're actually NOT out to get you!"





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 20, 2007, 05:26:45 PM
Since they are the USA rep to the IARU, it is their balloon, at least as far as USA amateurs are concerned. Last I checked, all involved with this thread were USA amateurs.



Quote
Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Actually Pete, It's nice to be able to give it a lift or shoot it down before it gets to that point.
As a public representative of Amateur Radio the League would be wise to test float their balloons more than they do.

I have no argument with your statement, but in the case of this thread and issue, it wasn't ultimately their balloon to float.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 05:41:44 PM
Pete, limiting the publicity to the ARRL Letter isn't what I'd call a very wide dissemination of information regarding the matter. That's not a whole heck of a lot more effective than using the bulletins on W1AW to do so.

I find it quite effective since it went to over 66,000 amateurs who subscribe to it and probably read by many others on their web site. I don't recall if amateur radio newsline reported on it. I see no reason for large dissemination of information that would not take any precedence over our own FCC rules and regulations. If individuals believe they are truly losing any privileges on 1/1/08, that's something they have to wrestle with in their own minds.

Quote
For a group of supposedly communications-savvy individuals to claim otherwise in this era of the internet is ridiculous.

Let me suggest to you that if the League wanted to deliberately cause misunderstandings, or get folks thinking that vital information is being deliberately withheld, they couldn't have found a better way than how this is being handled.

Do you subscribe to the "...if it quacks like a duck and if it walks like a duck..It might very well be a duck" theory of logic? If not, can you understand how such could be the case with many folks?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're actually NOT out to get you!"

This could also said for those who pull statements out of context and then run with them to the world.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W2INR on November 20, 2007, 06:11:10 PM
Quote
I find it quite effective since it went to over 66,000 amateurs who subscribe to it and probably read by many others on their web site.

I find it interesting that the ARRL didn't even cover all their members. From your numbers Pete they only sent out the information to less than half of their members!!I guess the other members don't count just like non members. ( They must be ignorant) ;)

Just for the record 66,000 is less than ten percent of the US Ham population. Now there is two ways to interpret that info, either these people (ARRL )have no clue or they did not want the amateur population to have this info. Either way reads bad for them and would incite suspicion from anyone with a brain cell or two.

Geez

What a waste


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 20, 2007, 06:21:07 PM
Aw fer cryin' out loud!  The new IARU bandplan was already a *done deal* when it was mentioned in the ARRL Letter in September!  That announcement was not an attempt to get input from the members - it was to tell us we'd already been had.  And it really pissed the ARRL officials off that some of us didn't just roll over and take it.

Steve WD8DAS


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 20, 2007, 06:37:56 PM
An interesting arrival in my email today...  I received a message from an anonymous person in reply to a message I'd sent directly to several ARRL officials.  Well, to be specific I should say it contained the same subject line as a message I sent only to a group of ARRL officials' addresses, with an "re:" added.   That same subject line was not used on any of my mailing list or web-board postings.  Interesting... might have been from someone who'd been forwarded a copy of my message by one of those officials, I suppose.

In any event, the message contained some poorly written name-calling and profanity, which I will mostly ignore, but the following line would be of interest to everyone I think...

>...senile old AM jerks! You been pissing on
>the league for too long.  you will all be dead in a couple
>years, so what you care?  run
>AM all you want nobody cares"...

Nice.  In the message I sent under that subject line I didn't even mention AM - just my oppositions to restrictive bandplans.  I guess it is another reference to AMers only being old-timers ready to kick the bucket.  That's certainly not my experience talking to guys on the bands.  And I'm only middle-aged at 44 years old, and I personally know 6 guys in their 20s and 30s that run AM quite a bit.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 08:23:16 PM
Quote
I find it quite effective since it went to over 66,000 amateurs who subscribe to it and probably read by many others on their web site.

I find it interesting that the ARRL didn't even cover all their members. From your numbers Pete they only sent out the information to less than half of their members!!I guess the other members don't count just like non members. ( They must be ignorant) ;)

You have to manually subscribe to the ARRL Letter. You don't get it just because you're a member. Blanket e-mails to "everyone" could be construed as SPAM.

Quote
Just for the record 66,000 is less than ten percent of the US Ham population. Now there is two ways to interpret that info, either these people (ARRL )have no clue or they did not want the amateur population to have this info. Either way reads bad for them and would incite suspicion from anyone with a brain cell or two.

Geez

What a waste

What would the amateur population do with this information? It doesn't affect any of our current FCC rules and regulations and no changes after 1/1/08, to any of our current operating frequencies, modes, or bandwidth here in the U. S.

However, as I said back on Reply 385: "Relative to the new voluntary Region 2 band plan, in hindsight, they(ARRL) probably would have saved themselves some grief if they had posted a blurb on their Amateur Radio News section of their homepage outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community."



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 20, 2007, 08:29:25 PM
An interesting arrival in my email today...  I received a message from an anonymous person

Steve WD8DAS

Steve: Can you drill down into the entire e-mail header to see where it originated from or possibly what e-mail server it came from? I know on my Juno account I have the option to show the full e-mail header. That's how I check for bogus ebay and paypal e-mails.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on November 20, 2007, 08:36:11 PM
Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference..

Actually Bill I was late to this party, and it was a collective effort.
Tom, WA3KLR was my heads up
Then Steve WD8DAS and Don K4KYV
all have been on this relentlessly

I must say, when you look at the IARU constitution(s), the obligations of the "member society" have not been met for U.S. licensees. There's an IARU main constitution and a Region 2 set of by-laws as well. Between them, there is a whole list of actionable shortfalls that could very well lead to the ejection of the ARRL as "member society," should anyone care to pursue the research and follow the IARU's system of review to submit a complaint. If short of ejection, there seems to be a mechanism to put them on probation for how they've handled this matter.

Fiduciary Responsibility (http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=744&bold=)
Characteristically, the fiduciary has greater knowledge and expertise about the matters being handled. A fiduciary is held to a standard of conduct and trust above that of a stranger or of a casual business person. He/she/it must avoid "self-dealing" or "conflicts of interests" in which the potential benefit to the fiduciary is in conflict with what is best for the person who trusts him/her/it.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 20, 2007, 10:41:57 PM
Pete, saying "we passed some dumbass IARU region 2 bandplan" and actually spelling out what the bandplan is, and how it came into being, are two different things.  I have to agree with the crowd - the ARRL did a pisspoor job in that regard.  One would hope that at the VERY least the ARRL would fight for a bandplan that wouldn't screw anyone.  It doesn't appear that was the case - or, if it was, they're certainly mum on the details.

Steve DAS - indeed, drill down and get the headers from the email.  Post 'em here and we can get a pretty good idea of who they came from (unless they used gmail or fastmail.fm - those services strip the originating IP address).


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 21, 2007, 12:08:44 AM
Pete, saying "we passed some dumbass IARU region 2 bandplan" and actually spelling out what the bandplan is, and how it came into being, are two different things.  I have to agree with the crowd - the ARRL did a pisspoor job in that regard.  One would hope that at the VERY least the ARRL would fight for a bandplan that wouldn't screw anyone.  It doesn't appear that was the case - or, if it was, they're certainly mum on the details.

It says in their final report, the revised Region 2 band plan was modeled after the Region 1 band plan, which became effective January 2006:
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf (http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf)
and further it says: "with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community"

I seriously doubt that after the sub-committee (B/C) presented their report to all the IARU Region 2 members (who are these countries):
http://www.iaru-r2.org/directory/ (http://www.iaru-r2.org/directory/)
they expected everyone to jump up, run back to their respective country, poll all their amateur licensee's for feedback, run back to the meeting, and make their vote known. This stuff doesn't work that way. Even if the ARRL chose not to vote for the plan, the plan still would have passed. Several countries within Region 2 already are using a very similar plan.

I don't see anyone getting screwed in the U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 9 years ago.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 21, 2007, 08:06:25 AM
Pete said:
Quote
I don't see anyone getting screwed in the U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 9 years ago.

(I highlighted)

This is the point that you and the (be)League(d) have pushed since it was discovered. But it is no longer a voluntary issue when the ARRgghhL attempts to tie it into Sec 97.101 Good Amateur Practice. I would still like to know what happened to the disclaimer that was at the bottom of previous IARU Reg. 2 band plans that stated that "These band plans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except in some countries in which the band plans are written into the national regulations." This is what I feel the ARRgghhL is attempting to do by gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization. They are way out there on this one and the are WRONG!!!!!!!!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on November 21, 2007, 08:17:36 AM
Since the League DID NOT object to the SUGGESTED bandwidth limits in the plan AND DID NOT object to the the SUGGESTED footnotes of AM operation then one HAS to conclude they agreed with them.

Quote
It wasn't a big deal then since it's a voluntary band plan and targeted mostly for the International Region 2 countries that wanted it modeled after the Region 1 band plan.

And Pete, last time I checked we were in Region 2. So it really doesn't matter WHO it was targeting. AS I said before; Suggestions do become reality from time to time. Does 1500W PEP ring a bell ?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 21, 2007, 09:35:21 AM
Pollyannas who see nothing but a bright side to the Region 2 Band Plan taking effect in January don't realize ALL the licensees in the region are harmed by a band plan that endorses pointless restrictions, including unwarranted enumerated bandwidths.

It is portrayed as a suspiciously strong goal to want to "harmonize" Region 2 with other regions 'to the extent possible.' Did I miss an explanation as to why? The nearest I could come to a basis was the notification embedded in the plan regarding emergency nets.  Whoops, there goes the popular AM gathering point at 7290Kc, in case you want to support this plan. Did our 'member society' ask us whether this would affect us ?

But can that be all of the reason?  There were no documented interference issues presented alongside this proposal that we can find out about. It's secret. Well whatever else sure seems important, since the League people are this adamant to defend the making of this plan and downplay the plan's significance. Contradiction noted.

As John W3JN pointed out such a while ago in this thread, there's evidence of ulterior motive(s). Under the ARRL's scheme of things, we won't find out about these motives in advance. What good would that do? as one apologist and cheerleader here has pointed out.

Indeed.

Well for the rest of us, here's part of the list:

ARRL technology lobbyist Paul Rinaldo (paid staff) not only agreed with the 2.7Kc bandwidth enumeration, he proposed it, and then signed the ARRL's endorsement when the full IARU voted to approve it.

There's your proof. 

Harrison (volunteer ARRL president) suggests his group does not intend to comply with the IARU voluntary band plan, and further suggests that the club does not intend to promote the band plan at the FCC as the IARU said "member societies" are supposed to do.

It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely with their radio amateur communities.

So why didn't the U.S. representative abstain from the vote?

There's your proof.

Furthermore, Harrison has said Rinaldo would have been told what the ARRL policy would be in advance of the Brazil meeting. Given that group's stunning defeat in front of the FCC on its failed bandwidth petition, do ya think they would have had bandwidth on their mind?  Rinaldo sure did, but he probably did that on his own. Wait, that's a problem too !

But regardless of any deliberations about applying the Region 1 plan as a template to Region 2, the club in Newington knew as policy it would have to recommend that U.S. licensees not comply with the voluntary band plan that emerged. There was no such notice given to the IARU or its Region 2 delegates.

I can't seem to get an answer from anyone as to which Region 2 countries lack a regulatory plan AND happen to need this IARU plan for guidance, as Harrison has claimed as part of the basis behind this plan. Bermuda, maybe? So the ARRL helped sell out U.S. licensees by confronting them now with a plan that we cannot support. I like that. I never got a chance to say whether I wanted my potential support pissed away.

The club has been dishonest with the IARU Region 2 delegates as to the ARRL's intentions, who probably assumed Rinaldo was probably acting in good faith with what he contributed to the discussions.

Had he exercised good judgment he would have sat this one out.  This poor judgment calls into question his qualifications as any kind of representative at the IARU, and certainly shall affect his candidacy, if he runs, to replace Larry Price as IARU president when the time comes.

Other players?  Sumner said he wasn't there, didn't have anything to do with it. Price said it's not his department; he was busy kissing footnotes at the ITU.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 21, 2007, 10:50:45 AM

But can that be all of the reason?  There were no documented interference issues presented alongside this proposal that we can find out about. It's secret. Well whatever else sure seems important, since the League people are this adamant to defend the making of this plan and downplay the plan's significance. Contradiction noted.



Interesting point, Paul.

If there is/was so little significance to the IARU conference for US hams, why did the League pony up maybe $10K to bother sending folks to the meetings?

Seems like a waste of money just to hobnob.

If it's about the partying and nothing else, they could have sent Timtron at League expense. ::)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Todd, KA1KAQ on November 21, 2007, 11:13:43 AM

Considering the FCC's view on further regulations and restrictions to enforce in the amateur radio service, it makes you wonder if maybe this was also a way of poking them in the eye with a 'see? the rest of the world agrees with us' type of statement.

Got my lastest ER last night Paul, good job on that write up. Like the failed bandwidth petition, the more who see this type of nonsense, the better.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W8ER on November 21, 2007, 01:16:12 PM
I have been watching, with interest, the ARRL/IARU fiasco.

We know that the ARRL is directly responsible for introducing the terms of the band plan that everyone is upset about. Their fingerprints are all over it.

The fact that they have ramrodded it through committee and are actually defending it says it all .... THEY WANT IT!

Why isn't even a question. It's not rumor that they introduced a bandwidth regulation petition (FCC RM-11306) and were squashed in their attempt. They haven't changed their mind, they still want bandwidth regulation! What better way to lend credibility to their next attempt than to point to international acceptance of their plan?

The current President of the ARRL, a ceremonial position, has been charged with running interference and placating you with spin. Everything that he says has some basis in fact but is designed to quiet you down, distract you. He is misleading you!

1) STOP wasting time with the ARRL. You are not going to change their minds. They want this band plan in place! Emailing Joel Harrison is entertaining but worthless!

Do you get QST? If you do, you are directly funding the organization that is doing all of this! Remember these are the guys that petitioned the FCC to adopt bandwidth regulation last year. My question to you is why fight what they are doing and send them money to fund their action?

MOST IMPORTANT -- If you must communicate with the ARRL, notify them that you are no longer supporting their arrogant, self serving moves and immediately cancel your membership. If you continue to support them you can only blame yourself when they petition the FCC again, as they have already done over your previous protests, and as they have promised to do again! As an IARU member, they are obligated to do so (read the IARU bandplan preamble).

2) Somebody needs to take up the task of organizing a group of skillful communicators to take our case against the unacceptable terms of the  Region 2 bandplan directly to IARU officials before it goes into effect! I do not think that everyone of us writing emails to IARU officials will accomplish anything except to push them away. Although I would not suggest eliminating that tactic if all else fails.

I also think that the tactics employed by the ARRL, to push their bandwidth agenda, needs investigation and discovery.  You also should remember that the ARRL is is the highest of places within the IARU. That influence begins with Larry Price as President and Dave Sumner as Secretary of the IARU.

I am not talking about just Region 2 IARU officials either! The last thing that the ARRL wants is for other members of the IARU to get the message that the plan has little support among the largest group of amateurs in the Region! They probably do not understand that the ARRL does not have the backing of  a) the majority of US amateurs and b) many many of their own members.

Personally, I do not think that we can do anything to stop the implementation of this bandplan BUT I sure as heck would not continue to support the ARRL in their efforts to overregulate our hobby!



--Larry W8ER


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k1qar on November 21, 2007, 03:31:26 PM
Larry

Checking out the League's Reply Comments back in 1998, they promised to devise a band plan by a "democratic process"  and to "assure accommodation of on air uses..  (paragraph 5)

Do you think, if they lied to Uncle Sam, it is far enough over the line to get them in trouble?   


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 21, 2007, 06:14:34 PM

Checking out the League's Reply Comments back in 1998... (RM-9259)
Quote
The comments in this proceeding were  largely not supportive of the League's proposal, but stated reasons for their lack of support reflected a misperception of the intent of the filing and its goal.  If anything, however, comments bespeak the need for the declaratory ruling requested, as they indicate a need to clarify Commission policy concerning band plans and the extent to which compliance therewith is an element of good amateur practice pursuant to Section 97.101(a).

Just as the amateur community "misperceived" the recent bandwidth petition.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=2082900001


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 21, 2007, 08:14:04 PM
Communicate



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 21, 2007, 10:09:22 PM
I see that CQ Magazine spoke out agains the new IARU band plan in the December issue's editorial.  The only problem, is that it was kind of in a backhanded manner!  They support regulation by bandwidth.  Their reason for speaking out against the new IARU band plan, is due to it being implemented/pushed by the ARRL in a snreaky manner.

Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 22, 2007, 07:53:14 AM
Ellen said:
Quote
I see that CQ Magazine spoke out agains the new IARU band plan in the December issue's editorial.  The only problem, is that it was kind of in a backhanded manner!  They support regulation by bandwidth.  Their reason for speaking out against the new IARU band plan, is due to it being implemented/pushed by the ARRL in a sneaky manner.

I don't foresee that as a problem Ellen. The more people that are made aware of the ARRgghhL's underhanded-ness, the better. I don't know the justifications for bandwidth regulation and why the staff at CQ is for it, (sorry I don't read that rag), but it doesn't hurt to have more people on board to stop the madness that has overtaken "Haich kue" in Newington. Interestingly, I do know of one ham prepared to take on legal litigation against the (be)League(d), and he is dead serious.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 22, 2007, 09:17:12 AM
Here's the bottom line on this mess:

1)  ARRL had, by proxy, direct involvement in development of the bandplan
2)  Details of same not communicated to amateurs
3)  Questions directed to ARRL regarding this bandplan met with angry and denigrating email from one director
4)  Other questions to directors met with varying responses, including "It's not my job to respond to non-members"
5)  Because of past actions ('98 "good amateur practice" debacle, recent "regulation by bandwidth" proposal) very valid questions remain regarding the ARRL's motives
6)  ARRL will not unequivocally state (if they have, Pete, I've glossed over it in the preceding 22 pages) that they will NOT pursue future regulation-by-bandwidth, nor will they state they will NOT press the FCC (or support the ITU in pressing) for formal institutionalization of the IARU-2 plan.
7)  At the very least the ARRL has created a PR disaster for itself.  The ARRL needs to carefully and explicitly state the genesis of the plan and what the ARRL plans for future petitions with the FCC germane to the goals stated in the plan.  8) And perhaps disciplining a certain director who unarguably presents a very, very, poor face to the ARRL.  HQ, when all is said and done, might be guileless.  I'm willing (barely) to give them the slight benefit of the doubt.  How they handle this will be the deciding factor in my mind.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 22, 2007, 08:00:23 PM
Good Evening, Happy Holiday Everyone,

 I too have been following this somewhat, quite frankly i am lost for words at this moment after reading down through the thread here. WOW... I will say this and not to add any insult to injury, but i am at a conclusion of, or that, there are positions of authority here that refuse or will not accept what ""No"" Means.. I have been noticing this more and more in all walks of life today. I can however speak from a position of "Ignorance" fact being I am Not educated or have a shingle to hang out of any kind, However, what i've learned or gained from, those here on the forum and close elmers i have come into knowing down through the years, This is Flat out wrong Period from any angle...

 I can do this much, i can push back the microwave and uhf work for a bit, bring into play the DSP system and the 813 machine at 2.7 KC's and put it on the air on 7.290 and let the masses see what that would sound like, sometimes showing how things work on the air is much more example rated than passing words back and forth.

 and maybe better medicine, is this what is wanted.

 I am very Disillusioned with this, i am not a very good writer, maybe not such an outstanding amateur, but i do know how and why circuitry acts, positions of authority are an entirely different animal.

73 and thank you for the use of the forum.

jack ka3zlr.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 23, 2007, 01:28:19 PM
HQ, when all is said and done, might be guileless.

That may possibly be true, but if so, they have certainly gone out of their way to cast doubt otherwise.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 23, 2007, 07:29:01 PM
CQ Magazine Editorial, from Editor Rich Moseson, W2VU  reposted with attribution, December 2007 issue

Here We Go Again

Six months ago, we took the ARRL to task in these pages for the secretive way in which it modified and then withdrew its controversial FCC petition proposing HF subbands based on bandwidth rather than mode (“The Secret Society,” June 2007). Now, it appears to be doing an end-run around not only its members but the FCC as well. As Ronald Reagan once famously said, “Here we go again.”

 To briefly review where we’ve been so far on this issue, back in 2002, the ARRL Board of Directors decided that, in order to best keep pace with developing technology, it would propose that the FCC change the way it divides up the amateur bands from the current mode basis (e.g., CW, phone, data, image) to one based on signal bandwidth (e.g., 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 3000 Hz, 6000 Hz). This, the League reasoned, would encourage the development of new modes without needing specific FCC approval for each one, and would eliminate confusion over some of the existing newer modes, such as digital voice (is it voice or is it data?). The thinking was that not much would change in actual usage

—CW and narrow-bandwidth digital modes would continue to predominate in the 200 and 500 Hz segments, while SSB would continue to be the primary mode in the 3000 Hz areas (and the divisions would match up with the current dividing lines between the CW and phone subbands). The concept became known as “regulation by bandwidth.”

 Before drafting its proposal, the ARRL wisely set out on a program of explaining the concept to anyone willing to listen and soliciting input from its members and the ham community at large. It stretched over three years. Finally, in late 2005, the League submitted a “regulation by bandwidth” petition to the FCC. Criticism was instantaneous and intense, and not always rooted in fact. Various subgroups within the hobby felt the ARRL was trying to promote one mode or activity at the expense of others (particularly theirs), and that this would be the end of amateur radio as we know it. CQ filed comments generally supporting the concept of regulation by bandwidth (we still do), but objecting to some of the specifics within the ARRL proposal. Others expressed their own views.

 In early 2007, realizing that the tide of amateur opinion was not yet attuned to the need to make changes, ARRL officials met quietly with FCC officials and submitted revisions that essentially gutted the proposal, then a couple of months later, withdrew the petition altogether. At the time, the League said it still felt that a shift to regulation by bandwidth was necessary and that it would revisit the issue in the future. It appears to be revisiting it now, and appears to be continuing the pattern started earlier this year of doing so very quietly and with very little explanation.

 The vehicle this time is Region II of the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU), which, on paper, is the international organization representing all national amateur radio societies before the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and other international agencies. The ARRL, however, has always served as the IARU’s international secretariat; former ARRL officers have always served as IARU President (currently, it’s former ARRL President Larry Price, W4RA), and particularly here in Region II (North and South America), the ARRL has always had a tremendous amount of influence over IARU policy.

 In mid-October, IARU Region II quietly announced that it had adopted a new HF band plan, “as the way to better organize the use of our bands efficiently.” The brief introduction urged member societies “in coordination with the authorities, (to) incorporate it in their regulations an promote it widely with their radio amateur communities.”

 The new band plan takes effect January 1, 2008, and guess what? It’s broken down by bandwidths! Not only that, but it appears to do nearly everything that opponents of the original ARRL plan feared that it would do. It limits AM operation to two 25-kHz segments in the 75-meter band and frequencies above 29 MHz, does not provide at all for other wider-than-SSB voice modes such as independent sideband (ISB) or enhanced single sideband (ESSB), and establishes segments for automatically controlled wide-bandwidth (2700 Hz) digital stations on all HF bands except 160 and 30 meters. In several cases, these “robot” station segments are right at the bottom of the U.S. phone bands, where the best DX can often be found. Currently, data transmission is not permitted in most U.S. HF phone bands.

 Now there are several important things to note:

 1) This band plan is voluntary and is superseded by regulations in specific countries. For example, it will not change the FCC rules that limit automatically controlled digital stations to nine very small band segments. However, growth of activity on those frequencies in other countries will no doubt lead to pressure on the FCC to bring US subbands into compliance.

 2) There is currently no bandwidth limitation on automatic digital stations operating within those band segments, and current FCC rules permit semi-automatic digital stations anywhere that RTTY is allowed (generally the CW subbands), but subject to a 500-Hz bandwidth limit outside the specific segments.

 3) The band plan states that IARU member societies are urged to limit the number of unattended stations on the air, and that they all should be semi-automatic, that is, coming on the air only in response to a query from a station under operator control. But in specifically creating segments for them on virtually all HF ham bands, the plan appears to encourage rather than discourage this type of operation.

 4) The ARRL’s original petition to the FCC called for the bandwidth on the current phone bands to be 3.5 kHz; its revised plan dropped that (without explanation) to 3 kHz; and now the maximum bandwidth for SSB in the IARU band plan is 2.7 kHz. It’s the incredible shrinking sideband signal...

 5) As in the past, we at CQ agree philosophically with the need for regulation by bandwidth, and we support strong band planning. We even urged the FCC in our comments on this original proceeding to put band planning on a par with repeater coordination, keeping it voluntary but giving precedence to those complying with it in the event of interference. But decisions of this magnitude should not be made in private, without public discussion and debate.

 6) There are many excellent features to this band plan, including the establishment of “centres of activity” on each band for slow-speed Morse code, QRP (low-power), slow-scan TV, digital voice and emergency communications, along with “preferred” contesting areas.

 It is unfortunate that all of these excellent components will doubtless be overshadowed by the ARRL’s apparent insistence on implementing regulation by bandwidth— including significant areas for unattended wideband digital stations—even though it is obvious that its members and other U.S. amateurs are not ready for it. It is equally unfortunate that there was no opportunity for the general ham public to discuss or debate any of this before the new plan was adopted. The nameplate on the door may say IARU, but the door itself is in Newington, and change comes very slowly in Newington. The secret society is alive and well.

 On a more pleasant note, happy holidays and happy new year to all!

                        73, Rich W2VU


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 23, 2007, 09:22:42 PM
Quote
The ARRL’s original petition to the FCC called for the bandwidth on the current phone bands to be 3.5 kHz; its revised plan dropped that (without explanation) to 3 kHz; and now the maximum bandwidth for SSB in the IARU band plan is 2.7 kHz. It’s the incredible shrinking sideband signal...
   ;D ;D

Quote
As in the past, we at CQ agree philosophically with the need for regulation by bandwidth, and we support strong band planning. We even urged the FCC in our comments on this original proceeding to put band planning on a par with repeater coordination, keeping it voluntary but giving precedence to those complying with it in the event of interference. But decisions of this magnitude should not be made in private, without public discussion and debate.

When it was first being seriously discussed whether or not we needed government imposed subbands at all in the US; that we might be better off as in Canada and most of the rest of the world to rely on voluntary band plans, the recent bandwidth nonsense had not yet raised its ugly head.  It seemed perfectly reasonable to establish voluntary band plans that would be more flexible than FCC regulations, allowing the FCC to cite stations that caused harmful interference while operating in non-compliance with the recommendations of the band plans, for not following "good amateur practice".

In fact, the ARRL had formally petitioned the FCC to adopt that option of enforcement, and the petition was assigned RM- number 9259 on 03 April 1998.  The FCC dismissed the proposal in an order released on 29 November 1999.

With the current situation we have just witnessed with ARRL and the new IARU band plan, maybe for the foreseeable future we would be better off with legal subbands after all, rather than relying on "voluntary" band plans, if these plans are going to be conceived in secrecy without first forming a consensus within the amateur community, and if they are to include technical standards like bandwith in addition to mere agreement on where different modes would operate within bands unencumbered by government imposed segmentation.  This is particularly true now following the phone band expansion that has allowed the FCC subbands to represent more realistically the interests of the amateur community at large.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 23, 2007, 10:25:41 PM
Just to follow-up on the anonymous insulting email I received in reply to a message sent to ARRL officers... the header doesn't have any useful info.  It was sent from one of the online email services which do not tell you much if anything about the sender.

My theory is that it was forwarded to someone else by one of the recipients at ARRL, and that bozo sent the nasty message to me.  At least that's my optimistic idea of what happened.  If it was one of the ARRL officials, that would be especially sad.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 24, 2007, 01:09:57 AM
I would forward it to ALL of the original recipients of your initial email. Might as well expose the creep.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 24, 2007, 05:18:01 AM
Good Day Everyone,

 After some more Careful thought about all of this, my obvious anguish in my previous post..as expected somewhat shocked, I just remembered something, it was two or three years ago, some of the members of WACOM, our local club here in Washington Pa. earned some award for one of these Pa qso DX things i don't take any part in that sort of operations, but a director was there at the ham fest to present this award, i think it's on the web site somewhere or it used to be, anyhow, i approached this fella an quiered him about some questions i had about Digital technique, linking and Satelite Ops up and coming Launches etc. But he made a statement of their strong interest in the Digital internet linkng and how important it was to them to get these band plans in order, i just remembered this conversation.

 It comes to my mind, what better preface, considering their last failed attempt at railroading....than to use this "Compliance Agreement" in the hand shaking process to guide the FCC in lue of the HF internet and whatever digital interests they have, as always causing shock and awe within hamdom, and when it's all said and done, there won't be to much change although the worry here is Bandwidth, Limited AM placement frequency usage, which is normal, and as always remind them Strongly, I can't express that enough.... of a place for AM.........that is two sidebands with carrier...that in the end they will Gain what they originally set out to do....so many years ago, there's always a backdoor that amazes me.....

 Interesting, it's amazing how the lights come on when playing Catch up.

Gary and the team i see your collecting for support, FB and a Gud idea...these things cost dearly for upkeep. I'll have Diana set out a check for the board in the morning mail.

 As Always thanks for the use of the forum.

73 jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 24, 2007, 09:24:42 AM
Just to follow-up on the anonymous insulting email I received in reply to a message sent to ARRL officers... the header doesn't have any useful info.  It was sent from one of the online email services which do not tell you much if anything about the sender.

My theory is that it was forwarded to someone else by one of the recipients at ARRL, and that bozo sent the nasty message to me.  At least that's my optimistic idea of what happened.  If it was one of the ARRL officials, that would be especially sad.

Steve WD8DAS



Steve, unless it was sent thru Gmail, fastmail.fm, or hushmail.com it still has IP info that can identify the sender.  Why not post the whole header here (or PM them to me) and we'll see what we can do.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 24, 2007, 02:54:55 PM

Before I left town on Wednesday I decided to let the insulting email drop and I trashed it.

I'm quite experienced in such things, but I couldn't discern anything from the headers as it was sent from one of the free web-based email systems. And I realized there's always a possibility it was a forward of a forward of a forward, and the original recipients at ARRL probably wouldn't even know or have any relationship to the bozo who sent it.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 24, 2007, 03:45:19 PM
I never discard things like that.  I move them to a special folder I created just for that sort of item, since it may be useful for later reference.  In the years that I have owned this computer, I have used but a fraction of its hard drive space, so I don't have any problem archiving the information.  Sometimes what appear to be unrelated pieces of a puzzle suddenly fall together with a perfect fit.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 24, 2007, 04:15:42 PM
BTW,

There's an e-ham thread on the IARU Band Plan.  I put my (more than) 2 cents worth in the thread.  Some think the band plan is dirty and underhanded. Others are pooh poohing it, saying comments against it are based upon rumor & innuendo.  Here's the thread if you're interested:

http://www.eham.net/articles/18030

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 24, 2007, 04:29:59 PM
Good Afternoon,

 Read the Eham responses, I especially like W7AIT response, LOL, Grab your pitch forks...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on November 24, 2007, 07:39:40 PM
"Telegram for Paul Rinaldo.."


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 24, 2007, 08:21:19 PM
I just finished listening to the a recording made by and posted on the AM reflector by Bry W5AMI, of David/WD5BZO during the "old nuts & bolts" net. Suffice to say, David seems to have gotten quite a bit of sunshine pumped up his skirt about this IARU Reg 2 Band plan. Here is the URL for the recording: http://w5ami.net/IARU_wd5bzo.mp3 (http://w5ami.net/IARU_wd5bzo.mp3)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 24, 2007, 09:18:43 PM
I challenge several points made by WD5BZO in the MP3 recording of a net transmission...

>The ARRL rep says the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US hams -

Why not?  The USA is in Region 2.  Radio signals don't stop at national borders - that's why a *regional* plan would be developed in the first place.  And can't we participate in the changing of the bandplan for our region if it includes other countries?  Hams in other countries aren't to be allowed to run all the modes we do in the United States?  Seems kooky to me...

>To get a voice that will be heard by the League, become a member -

As far as I've been able to determine, no effort was made to get any input from anyone, members or non-members, before the ARRL and IARU developed and voted upon the bandplan changes.  And after we discovered it had happened, member feedback on this topic has been thoroughly rejected, with significant attitude on the part of ARRL officials and Directors.   I am a long-time member of the ARRL, and my respectful and gently-expressed opinions on the bandplan have been ignored, insulted, attacked, scorned, belittled, and pooh-poohed.  It would appear that *I* do not have even a tiny voice in this matter - can any other League members report better results?

> The ARRL VP is not willing to get in the middle of a debate

Why the heck not?  Wouldn't that be a way to discuss it with members and other amateurs?  Sounds like he does not feel he has any need to speak with us about it after all.

>WA3VJB has put out a lot of misinformation

Everything I've seen Paul write on this subject has matched my *personal* experience on this issue.   I am not relying just upon discussions on mailing lists and web-forums - I've based my views on the responses I have received directly from ARRL and IARU officials.  Can you specify the "mis-information" that is claimed?   I'm not seeing it...

Steve WD8DAS

sbjohnston@aol.com








Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 24, 2007, 09:42:49 PM
Pete said:
Quote
I don't see anyone getting screwed in the U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 9 years ago.

(I highlighted)

This is the point that you and the (be)League(d) have pushed since it was discovered. But it is no longer a voluntary issue when the ARRgghhL attempts to tie it into Sec 97.101 Good Amateur Practice. I would still like to know what happened to the disclaimer that was at the bottom of previous IARU Reg. 2 band plans that stated that "These band plans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except in some countries in which the band plans are written into the national regulations." This is what I feel the ARRgghhL is attempting to do by gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization. They are way out there on this one and the are WRONG!!!!!!!!

Since the FCC shot them down 9 years ago on the same issue, what do you think has changed to make the FCC more receptive to applying the voluntary Region 2 band plan as the official FCC "amateur radio rules of the road" today?

"gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization" In the U. S., there is only one Agency(FCC) that administers, regulates, and polices all amateur radio rules and regulations. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: KA8WTK on November 24, 2007, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: wd8das link=topic=12262.msg94009#msg94009 date=1195957123
>To get a voice that will be heard by the League, become a member -
[/quote


If this were a League matter, I would agree. But, the ARRL is the Member Society for the US that is to represent ALL US Hams at the IARU, not just League members.

The ARRL itself states on it's web page, in the area "About the ARRL", that it represents US Hams. It does not state that the ARRL is too represent only dues paying members. A dues paying member has other, spelled out, benefits.

As regards the IARU, the ARRL is misrepresenting itself to the International Community as the voice for US operators if at "home" it claims to be responsive only to members.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 25, 2007, 12:05:06 AM
Pete said:
Quote
Since the FCC shot them down 9 years ago on the same issue, what do you think has changed to make the FCC more receptive to applying the voluntary Region 2 band plan as the official FCC "amateur radio rules of the road" today?

"gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization" In the U. S., there is only one Agency(FCC) that administers, regulates, and polices all amateur radio rules and regulations. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon.

Then you tell me Pete, why do they continue to solicit the FCC into making the IARU Reg. 2 band plan the definitive for Good Amateur Practice?? ???


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 25, 2007, 04:16:00 AM
Pete said:
Quote
Since the FCC shot them down 9 years ago on the same issue, what do you think has changed to make the FCC more receptive to applying the voluntary Region 2 band plan as the official FCC "amateur radio rules of the road" today?

"gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization" In the U. S., there is only one Agency(FCC) that administers, regulates, and polices all amateur radio rules and regulations. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon.

Then you tell me Pete, why do they continue to solicit the FCC into making the IARU Reg. 2 band plan the definitive for Good Amateur Practice?? ???

Can you explain in more detail by what you mean? A reference to the current official ARRL solicitation to the FCC would also be helpful.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 25, 2007, 05:35:21 AM
Good Day Everyone,

 I wouldn't play that card, if I may, I believe the gentleman on the recording expleted to stay awake at the wheel. FBOM. That deduces "Awareness" The he said she said is unproductive at this point in time i believe this "Compliance Agreement" has an effective date up and coming.

 Any organization that states publically, that it represents etc etc, in a public format in the public eye, is open to question at any time, and would have to prove otherwise any and all quieries to be false or unproductive for the common good.

 I'm a libritarian, we still have the right in the states to public forum, any person has the right to Question Representation, from any enitity, in good character of course.

 The he said she said, finger pointing, useless, proof in action OM's .

 Show Me......

jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 25, 2007, 08:05:55 AM
Pete said:
Quote
Can you explain in more detail by what you mean? A reference to the current official ARRL solicitation to the FCC would also be helpful.

Well, lets go with this one for starters: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc)

and this directly from the top of the page of 'the band plan': The IARU Region 2 has established this band plan as the way to better organize the use of our
bands efficiently. To the extent possible, this band plan is harmonized this with those of the other regions. It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote
it widely with their radio amateur communities.


Is it ironic that the IARU reg 2 logo is vaguely similar to another logo???


http://www.iaru-r2.org/ (http://www.iaru-r2.org/)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 25, 2007, 10:29:46 AM
So let's see here, the U.S. has 80 - 85 % of the licensed hams in Region 2, but the new Region 2 band plan is to be ignored by the U.S. Amateurs.

Maybe the U.S., Canada and perhaps Mexico should form IARU Region 4 then?  For proper representation.  What do you think?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 25, 2007, 10:34:56 AM
Tom said:
Quote
Maybe the U.S., Canada and perhaps Mexico should form IARU Region 4 then?  For proper representation.  What do you think?

And that small percentage that continues to pledge allegiance to the (be)League(d) can remain in Region 2 as a consolation ;)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 25, 2007, 10:42:05 AM
Ron Paul for CEO!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 25, 2007, 10:47:04 AM
I'm all for Independence...Right On...(raises right fist in the air)....


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 25, 2007, 10:55:38 AM
"Telegram for Paul Rinaldo.."


Worth a try !!!
You bring the torch, I have a match.

But say, I have discovered a couple of errors that I have personally made in this thing.
 
One is that I thought Larry Price has a responsibility to address concerns and complaints about the people he manages as part of his job at the IARU. He does not. He told me it is up to his judgment whether to take such action.

Next mistake was including, early on, the U.S. delegates in a series of emails and phone calls where several of us were actually attaining revisions to the IARU plan taking effect in January. These steps were taken by the cheerful and receptive non-U.S. delegates in Region 2.

Whoops ! This kind of behavior must have alerted Sumner, Rinaldo et. al. that maybe they were being challenged, and they now insist that any queries from U.S. licensees be deferred to them, where non-responsiveness can be the rule.

Two outstanding questions:
1. Harrison, in email traffic posted in this thread,  said the ARRL Board of Directors develops policy for and ahead of these IARU conferences. Since Rinaldo is the only known player at the table, what was he given as an agenda to represent all U.S. licensees?

2. Harrison also has said, in the same communications, that these plans are typically for countries that have no regulatory or voluntary band plan. What Region 2 country indicated such a need for the plan taking effect in January?

So there ya go. See if you can get answers.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 25, 2007, 11:00:08 AM
Paul said:
Quote
But say, I have discovered a couple of errors that I have personally made in this thing.

Shame on you Paul for spreading mis-information! ;)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 25, 2007, 11:18:41 AM
I remember Eisenhower a long time ago commented something about compartmentalization,..Thing...places unattainable...activities unseen by the American civilians...etc...

boy he don't know how right he was...awesum.


jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 25, 2007, 03:09:50 PM

Well, lets go with this one for starters: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc)

and this directly from the top of the page of 'the band plan': The IARU Region 2 has established this band plan as the way to better organize the use of our
bands efficiently. To the extent possible, this band plan is harmonized this with those of the other regions. It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote
it widely with their radio amateur communities.

The problem here is that you're 8 years behind the times.
From your link above the FCC's ruling:
"1.1  Background.  On April 3, 1998, the ARRL filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling, RM-9259, requesting that the Commission declare that the phrase "good amateur practice" as used in the amateur service rules  requires that control operators of amateur radio stations comply with voluntary band plans adopted by other amateur radio operators across the country and around the world.   The ARRL also request we declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accordance with good amateur practice".


And the FCC Decision:
1.1  Decision.   One of the basic principles of the amateur service is that all frequencies are shared and no frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station.   Voluntary band planning within the amateur service community, by licensees and representatives of licensees who have a vested interest in ensuring fair and effective use of amateur service frequencies, is a method that the amateur service community has long used to meet the requirement of Section 97.101 that each licensee and control operator make the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies.   It allows the amateur service community to accommodate the varied operating interests of licensees and the specific operating activities that a station or group of stations wishes to engage in without explicit regulation.  Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to reallocate its spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor.  The Commission's role in amateur service band planning, especially on the HF and Medium Frequency amateur service bands, generally has been limited to establishing the emission types that can be transmitted in different frequency segments. 

   1.2  We believe that it is not necessary to define the term "good amateur practice" as used in the Rules as requiring that amateur stations comply with voluntary band plans or declare that any amateur station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accord with good amateur practice.  We believe that such definition would have the effect of transforming voluntary band plans into de facto required mandates.  We do not believe that such a result would be consistent with the underlying intent of the Commission's policy regarding voluntary band planning in the amateur service."   


So, as I said earlier: The U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 8 years ago.

And, you and the IARU said from above: "It is suggested..."
There is nothing legal and binding in the word "suggested". As you can see from the FCC final declaration on voluntary band plans under the umbrella of "good operating practices", we already have our current rules in place.

Quote
Is it ironic that the IARU reg 2 logo is vaguely similar to another logo???
http://www.iaru-r2.org/ (http://www.iaru-r2.org/)

You might want to read the IARU history and probably thank Hiram Percy Maxim for helping iin the formulation of the organization.
http://www.iaru.org/cal-180.html (http://www.iaru.org/cal-180.html)
Here's the 75 year anniversary graphic:

(http://www.iaru.org/logotemp/iaru75.jpg)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 25, 2007, 04:31:42 PM
Well Pete, I aint gonna convince you and you aint gonna convince me. I personally have a problem with the organization you hold is such high esteem. I and there are allot of others on this board that will agree with me that the ARRgghhL is doing their damnest to destroy amateur radio as we know it. I've been (be)League(d) free now for ten years and if memory serves me, their membership has not been rising. They are low down and dirty underhanded. And I won't support them anymore!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 25, 2007, 05:00:39 PM
The ARRL folks say the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US hams.  But the USA is in Region 2.  Radio signals don't stop at national borders - that's why a "regional" plan would be developed in the first place. 

AM operation is not confined to the USA or even to the USA and Canada.  I have worked numerous AM stations in the Caribbean, and have heard Cuban AM signals on 160 many times, even though they have always been too weak for me to successfully work.  If AM is to remain a mainstream  facet of amateur radio, we don't want it to become a US-only activity for several reasons. There is quite a bit of interest in AM in Europe and Australia at present, so why not Central and South America?

The more world-wide interest there is in the mode, the more the likelihood that the manufacturers will continue to include AM capability on the store-bought transceivers that are sold worldwide.  Worldwide AM capability means more international interest in the mode.  More than just a few present-day AM'ers got their interest sparked when they tried out a transceiver on AM, and some of these hams have managed to generate excellent signals on the air using transceivers, equipped with high quality microphones and maybe some type of audio processing,  working into linears.  Others have actually opened the covers of their transceivers and made MODIFICATIONS (gasp!) to improve the quality of their AM signals.  Still others have since acquired or built plate modulated tube type rigs or gone the solid state class-E  route.

If AM is limited to a  relatively small group of US hams while the rest of the world goes the way of regulation-by-bandwidth and exclusion of AM, and if AM capability disappears from the popular radios sold worldwide, it will just be a matter of time until we see international pressure to follow suit in the USA.

This is just one of the reasons why the proposition that the IARU bandplan is not meant for US hams, that it will have no effect on what we are allowed do under Part 97, and that it is strictly voluntary and therefore US hams are under no obligation to conform to its recommendations,  is a bogus argument.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 25, 2007, 06:00:58 PM
The ARRL folks say the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US hams.  But the USA is in Region 2.  Radio signals don't stop at national borders - that's why a "regional" plan would be developed in the first place. 

AM operation is not confined to the USA or even to the USA and Canada.  I have worked numerous AM stations in the Caribbean, and have heard Cuban AM signals on 160 many times, even though they have always been too weak for me to successfully work.  If AM is to remain a mainstream  facet of amateur radio, we don't want it to become a US-only activity for several reasons. There is quite a bit of interest in AM in Europe and Australia at present, so why not Central and South America?


The Region 1 band plan, from which the revised Region 2 band plan was based upon, has been in affect since January 2006. The maximum bandwidth specified in the Region 1 band plan from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz is 2700 Hz.
REGION 1 Band Plan (http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf)

Are countries in Europe complying with the Region 1 plan? For the Region 3 band plan (Australia is part of that), the Phone operation includes SSTV, FAX and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz. What about Australia?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 25, 2007, 07:06:17 PM
Ok, it's all just about standardizing voluntary compliance..Right, back into my hole I go...

My support for the members here is as always,.. my support for the system will be on it's way soon, and I hope nobody has to eat crow over this.

What a Debate...Wow...unbelievable...

73 Om's KA3ZLR SK.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on November 25, 2007, 07:21:04 PM
Pete, you're (perhaps purposely?) missing the forest for the trees.  I think the suspicion is that once all of these bandplans line up, the goal of the ARRL is perhaps to lobby the ITU to institutionalize them at the next ITU WRC.  Once so accepted by the US they would have the effect of being a treaty, upon which they would need to be ratified (there are 4 different ways treaties may become ratified in the US).  Once adopted they would be incorporated into the Feces regs (NOT as law, as some have erroneously stated).

So there you go.  The ARRL failed in 98, failed a couple of years ago, and (on the face of it) appears to be doing an end-run around the FCC to the ITU.

The interesting thing about that is I'm pretty sure the Department of State is receptive to comments from parties whom these treaties might affect  ;)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 25, 2007, 08:39:52 PM
Pete, you're (perhaps purposely?) missing the forest for the trees.

I don't think I'm missing anything relative to this issue. My crystal water globe ball won't be back till tomorrow. Then you can peer into it and see what the future holds.

Quote
I think the suspicion is that once all of these bandplans line up, the goal of the ARRL is perhaps to lobby the ITU to institutionalize them at the next ITU WRC.  Once so accepted by the US they would have the effect of being a treaty, upon which they would need to be ratified (there are 4 different ways treaties may become ratified in the US).  Once adopted they would be incorporated into the Feces regs (NOT as law, as some have erroneously stated).

So there you go.  The ARRL failed in 98, failed a couple of years ago, and (on the face of it) appears to be doing an end-run around the FCC to the ITU.

The interesting thing about that is I'm pretty sure the Department of State is receptive to comments from parties whom these treaties might affect  ;)

Well, after 23 pages of replies, discussions, whining, evil lord syndrome finger pointing, etc. you seem to be the only one to express a future ARRL/ITU conspiracy.

Excerpt from the summation of recently ended ITU meeting:
"The IARU had hoped that if a 5MHz allocation could not be achieved at WRC-07, an appropriate agenda item could be included for WRC-11. The 2007 conference, however, had little interest in taking up HF issues at the next conference, tentatively set for 2011, having little to show for a great deal of effort expended on HF in preparing for WRC-07. The only HF issues on the provisional WRC-11 agenda have to do with oceanographic radar applications and the implementation of new digital technologies for the maritime mobile service."

I seriously doubt the ITU wants to get involved with converting voluntary IARU Regional band plans into a specific country's "amateur radio rules of the road" or anything else you might want to call it. But, that was a good stretch.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 26, 2007, 07:38:39 AM
So, what your saying (by using the phrase, I seriously doubt) is that either you know more than the rest here (if so, please share) or your unfounded opinion carries more weight than others here (since you chose to use descriptive terms like whining, evil lord syndrome and finger pointing). Neither is a legitimate platform for your case.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 26, 2007, 08:57:07 AM
Pete said:
Quote
The Region 1 band plan, from which the revised Region 2 band plan was based upon, has been in affect since January 2006. The maximum bandwidth specified in the Region 1 band plan from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz is 2700 Hz.

Which begs the question "Just because its good enough for Region 1 means its good enough for Region 2?"


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on November 26, 2007, 09:05:57 AM
Pete, do you seriously think that there won't be any change in the issues to be discussed at WRC-11 in the next four years?

The IARU does participate in ITU conferences; indeed, one of its missions is to "represent the interests of all amateurs worldwide".  Here is how the IARU participates in ITU treaty conferences (copied in part from the IARU's website http://www.iaru.org/ac-respol.html

Quote
While only Member States can vote at treaty conferences, Sector Members such as the IARU can influence the ITU’s deliberative process. Resolution 82 (Minneapolis, 1998) invited each Sector to develop its own procedures for approving questions and recommendations using an alternative approval process and to develop its own guidelines. Permitting Sector Members to participate in the approval process is considered necessary to be more responsive to changes in the telecommunications marketplace.

The amateur services are dependent upon the positions toward them of the Member States of the ITU. Close decisions can be modified by the attitudes of the Sector Members, as they operate telecommunications networks having economic impact on the countries in which they operate.

Thus, the IARU needs to develop and maintain the support of both ITU Member States and of other Sector Members.

//snip//

3.1       Who Does an IARU Participant Represent?

There is no question that an IARU participant must represent the interests of all radio amateurs worldwide. He or she is not there to advocate national or regional positions. While representatives may have been selected for their specialized knowledge in a particular facet of Amateur Radio, they should not view themselves as advocating one interest at the detriment of another.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 26, 2007, 11:04:03 AM
Are countries in Europe complying with the Region 1 plan?

As far as AM goes, yes.  The Region 1 band plan carries the following "preferred mode and usage note":

All modes - CW, SSB and those modes listed as Centres of Activity, plus AM (Considerationshould be given to adjacent channel users).

This appears to grant an exception to the 2700Hz bandwidth provision, since that is too narrow for DSB AM to operate, and the statement regarding "consideration of adjacent channel users" implies that AM signals would be expected to occupy more than the standard 2700 Hz bandwidth.

Not that it's desirable for AM to be reduced to a footnote that grants non-compliance in the form of a special case exception, but the Region 2 plan doesn't even contain that.  Instead, AM is relegated to 40m, plus a few narrow "windows" in 75m, 20m and 10m, but no AM operation at all is recommended on 160m, 15m, 17m or 12m.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 26, 2007, 02:54:44 PM
Are countries in Europe complying with the Region 1 plan?

As far as AM goes, yes.  The Region 1 band plan carries the following "preferred mode and usage note":

All modes - CW, SSB and those modes listed as Centres of Activity, plus AM (Considerationshould be given to adjacent channel users).

This appears to grant an exception to the 2700Hz bandwidth provision, since that is too narrow for DSB AM to operate, and the statement regarding "consideration of adjacent channel users" implies that AM signals would be expected to occupy more than the standard 2700 Hz bandwidth.

Not that it's desirable for AM to be reduced to a footnote that grants non-compliance in the form of a special case exception, but the Region 2 plan doesn't even contain that.  Instead, AM is relegated to 40m, plus a few narrow "windows" in 75m, 20m and 10m, but no AM operation at all is recommended on 160m, 15m, 17m or 12m.


Sorry Don, I don't agree that their words implies that there is an "AM exception" between 135.7 KHz and 29.2 MHz. Regardless of what the amateurs are actually doing in those countries, the voluntary Region 1 band plan clearly spells out the recommended maximum bandwidth for "All Modes" from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz to be 2700 Hz. At 29.2 to 29.7 MHz, the chart clearly spells out  "All Modes" maximum recommended bandwidth to be 6000 Hz.

Since a number of countries probably have an equivalent/similar FCC-type regulatory authority which probably takes precedence over a voluntary plan, their amateur radio operators probably ignore the voluntary Region 1 band plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 26, 2007, 03:12:37 PM
Pete, do you seriously think that there won't be any change in the issues to be discussed at WRC-11 in the next four years?

Never said that; what I said was: "I seriously doubt the ITU wants to get involved with converting voluntary IARU Regional band plans into a specific country's "amateur radio rules of the road" or anything else you might want to call it."
I'm sure if over the next four years some high visibility, pressing telecommunication-type country issue came up that required multiple country involvement, discussion, etc., they probably would find a way to add it to their agenda.

And, on the flip side, there's also no stopping anyone from taking a pen in hand and writing a request for proposed rulemaking to the FCC either.

Quote
The IARU does participate in ITU conferences; indeed, one of its missions is to "represent the interests of all amateurs worldwide".  Here is how the IARU participates in ITU treaty conferences (copied in part from the IARU's website http://www.iaru.org/ac-respol.html

Yep, I'm aware of their missions.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 26, 2007, 03:17:09 PM
So, what your saying (by using the phrase, I seriously doubt) is that either you know more than the rest here (if so, please share) or your unfounded opinion carries more weight than others here (since you chose to use descriptive terms like whining, evil lord syndrome and finger pointing). Neither is a legitimate platform for your case.

Thanks Steve, but I seriously doubt my platform will change. Haven't seen any convincing arguments in 23 pages of this thread.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 26, 2007, 03:29:03 PM
Nor have you presented any. So what's your point?


So, what your saying (by using the phrase, I seriously doubt) is that either you know more than the rest here (if so, please share) or your unfounded opinion carries more weight than others here (since you chose to use descriptive terms like whining, evil lord syndrome and finger pointing). Neither is a legitimate platform for your case.

Thanks Steve, but I seriously doubt my platform will change. Haven't seen any convincing arguments in 23 pages of this thread.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 26, 2007, 10:40:02 PM
OK Guys,

It looks like I stirred up a little bit of a Hornets Nest, when I posted on the e-Ham IARU band plan thread the e-mail I sent out.  Bear with me, this is kind of long. Al Feder, W1UX sent me a private e-mail about my post. Then he forwarded it to Dave Sumner, K1ZZ (who actually was listed as one of the recipeints in my original e-mail).  I was CCed on the e-mail. Here's Al's e-mail to Dave:



 Dear Mr. Sumner,

Ms. Rugowski has very eloquently stated the situation as per her email to you and E-ham posting below. 

Her points #1 - #4, as well as her subsequent posting as further clarification, really do lay out the situation. Her comments stand out as a reasonable request for clarification, devoid of emotional claptrap and “misunderstanding”.

I have operated all modes for years, and currently enjoy the technical challenges of AM operation, including building and repairing old and modern gear to whatever extent I am capable. A 2.7 khz limitation on the 160 meter band, for example, would be destructive if not irrelevant, harmful and contrary to the most active users of that band (aside from the occasional flurry of contesters)

It seems the League is only beginning to realize that the AM Community constitutes one of the few technically savvy core groups within amateur radio today. Declining standards have brought amateur radio to a pretty low state; new “appliance operators” do constitute a “market” but there is little or no knowledge there of how radios work.  And AM is definitely not a “dinosaur” as it serves, at the very least, as a training ground for the broadcast industry, as well as any RF related or audio related engineering field.

Mr. Sumner, I have been a licensed amateur since 1953. I have supported the ARRL **continuously** for that length of time. I have viewed with increasing alarm the League’s frequent efforts to push “band plans” of one kind or another, when so few other developed countries have such plans. Look at Canada: they assume a licensed amateur will use his discretion and operate properly anywhere within an assigned band. But the ARRL wishes to chop things up more and more, with increasing limits. Towards what end? Does ARRL think so little of the US amateur population that it must increasingly suffocate us with more and more restrictive rule suggestions?

We all know that a bureaucracy eventually grows merely to feed itself. Is this what is happening with ARRL? I think it is; most “membership organizations”  poll their membership before attempting to implement any kind of substantial policy: I saw this more constructive approach when I was a member of IEEE for years; as well as the PTG (Registered Piano Technicians’ Guild), and currently the Audio Engineering Society. With ARRL, we have to read the fine print and the minutes to see what really goes on.  We have about as much input and ability to affect policy decisions as “members” do in the National Geographic Society! 

I would refer you to Moore’s Laws of Bureaucracy, which pretty much describe things, although I don’t expect you may agree J

http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/Lawsburo.htm

As the Executive Director for some years of a nonprofit foundation* devoted to making contributions to legitimate public service 501 c(3) operations, I have been watching ARRL closely for some time and unfortunately cannot, especially with these new developments, feel confident in adding ARRL to our list of beneficiaries at this time.

I do welcome further clarification should you care to do so, but in order for your reply to be effective, I would suggest a detailed response to the various logical points made in Ms. Rugowski’s e-mail quoted below.

Many thanks,
Yves A. (Al) Feder
W1UX
Killingworth, CT

Dave responded to AL, CCing me in the process.  Heres' what he sent:

Al,
 
Working from the bottom up, the ARRL's membership currently stands at more than 152,000, more than 90% of whom are FCC amateur licensees. I have no idea where the 66,000 figure comes from but it is off by more than 100%.
 
With regard to point #4, if we were talking about a regulatory limit it would be necessary bandwidth, not occupied bandwidth, that should be specified. (In the case of the Region 2 band plan, since it's not a regulatory limit -- which also moots most of points #1-3 -- it doesn't matter.) We were very careful to avoid this pitfall in RM-11306; the proposed definition of bandwidth was necessary bandwidth, not occupied bandwidth. For analog modes, necessary bandwidth is defined as 2700 Hz for voice SSB and 6000 Hz for voice DSB. That's an ITU Recommendation and did not originate with the ARRL.
 
With regard to point #3, in Canada the maximum bandwidth allowed is in fact 6 kHz. See http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/rbr4e.pdf/$FILE/rbr4e.pdf, Schedule I, and the definition of "bandwidth" which (unfortunately for our Canadian colleagues) parallels that of occupied bandwidth rather than necessary bandwidth. This is not the case in the US, and I am confident that the ARRL Board would oppose any move to follow Canada in that regard since the Board has always supported AM.
 
By the way, Ellen seems to have overlooked the fact that the Region 2 plan provides for AM at 3875-3900 kHz.
 
The fact that the new  Region 2 band plan did not originate with the ARRL will be clear if you look at the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005. See http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm and compare it with the new Region 2 plan.
 
The committee that discussed the band plan in Brasilia in September didn't spend much time on 160 meters -- the use of AM in the upper part of the band is hardly a matter of international concern since most countries don't even have that part of the band allocated to them. The ARRL did spend a lot of time on the 160-meter band plan back in 2001 and solicited membership input in the way you suggest. The committee report is at http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0107/160-meter.html; note in particular the discussion of AM. The resulting Board action was taken at the July 2001 Board meeting:
 
57. Mr. Roderick, as Chairman, presented the report and recommendations of the 160 Meters Band Plan Ad Hoc Committee. A recommended band plan was created based upon the heavy input of Amateurs responding to the Committee's request. Mr. Haynie returned to the Chair at 11:40 AM. On motion of Mr. Roderick, seconded by Mr. Frenaye, it was VOTED that the following 160 Meters band plan revisions developed by the 160 meters band plan committee after input from hundreds of 160 meters band users be adopted:

Recommended ARRL 160 Meters Band Plan (1.8 -- 2.0 MHz)

1.800 -- 1.810
 Digital modes
 
1.810
 CW QRP
 
1.800 -- 2.000
 CW
 
1.843 -- 2.000
 SSB SSTV and other wideband modes
 
1.910
 SSB QRP
 
1.995 -- 2.000
 Experimental
 
1.999 -- 2.000
 Beacons
 


That is the ARRL band plan for 160 meters and will remain so until the 15 voting Directors on the Board decide otherwise.

I hope this is responsive to your concerns.

73,

David Sumner, K1ZZ

Am I being BSed, or are Sumner & Co. all of a sudden changing their minds or coming clean, because of pressure from somebody who can hit them in the pocketbook?

As of now, I'm taking his response with a grain of salt.  Any input would be appreciated from you guys.

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 26, 2007, 11:34:16 PM
Here are comments from the Great Lakes Division Director, Jim
Weaver K8JE, regarding the IARU band plan proposal.
 
- - - - - - - - -
 
+++ AM Privileges -- Under Attack? +++
 
Definitely not!
 
A few members contacted me with questions about the possible impact on
US hams of a bandplan adopted by Region 2 of the International Amateur
Radio Union -- IARU. The answer to the question is that the Region 2
bandplan has no impact on US hams.
 
For background, the IARU is the International organization of national
Amateur Radio societies from around the world. These societies include
the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC), the Radio Society of Great Britain
(RSGB) and the ARRL. Region 2 of the IARU covers the Western
hemisphere. IARU cannot issue legally-binding rules or regulations.
 
There are three regions in the IARU. Each of the regions has a
voluntary bandplan. The Region 1 and Region 3 bandplans preceded the
Region 2 plan. IARU Region 2 held a conference a few weeks ago.
Among other actions, it adopted its new recommended bandplan during
this conference.
 
It is critical to understand that this recommended bandplan has
absolutely no relevance to countries such as Canada and the US which
have federal agencies (e.g. the FCC) that define and regulate Amateur
Radio bands. In addition, IARU bandplans are merely recommendations to
amateurs in countries that do not have such government agencies. There
is no force of law behind the voluntary bandplans.
 
The concern of some amateurs seems to be that the FCC will adopt the
Region 2 bandplan; thereby reducing the US's frequency allocation for
AM. One writer from the GLD said the FCC has previously adopted a
number of practices recommended by the IARU. To this moment, he has
not responded to my request to identify just which IARU recommended
actions were picked up and adopted by the Commission. Similarly, a
writer from outside the GLD has accused IARU President Larry Price,
W4RA of a written attempt to manipulate International Treaty to reduce
AM privileges. To date, he too, has not responded to my request for a
reference to the source of his accusation.
 
Finally, CQ Magazine has jumped into the fray by accusing ARRL of using
the recent IARU Conference to further regulation by bandwidth. I enjoy
reading CQ; however, as much as I enjoy reading it I equally strongly
assure you that its editor has gotten caught-up in bad journalism. The
basis for the editorial appears merely to be ARRL's
publicly-acknowledged support of regulation by bandwidth and the fact
that the Region 2 bandplan specified bandwidths. This logic is similar
to claiming 1 plus 1 = 6.
 
The fact is that ARRL did not participate in developing this bandplan.
We had no representation on the bandplan committee. Could it be that
in reality, the plan was developed in its present form because the
delegates who drafted it believe this is the way it should be and that
there was no dastardly conspiracy after all? Or is it too hard to
believe in this day of ever-present conspiracy theories is it too much
to expect that some things are done in a fully responsible manner?
 
The bottom line to this small flurry of concern by some AM colleagues
is that the Region 2 bandplan represents nothing to worry about. The
IARU has no impact on US FCC regulations . . . the FCC has no apparent
intent to act against AM in the foreseeable future . . . the ARRL has
no thought of recommending the FCC take action against AM . . . and I
will vote against any effort to get ARRL to recommend action against
AM.
 
My recommendation to AM operators is to relax and enjoy your favorite
form of Amateur Radio . . . for a long time.
 
- - - - - - - - -
 
 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 27, 2007, 03:00:02 AM
OK Guys,

It looks like I stirred up a little bit of a Hornets Nest, when I posted on the e-Ham IARU band plan thread the e-mail I sent out.  Bear with me, this is kind of long. Al Feder, W1UX sent me a private e-mail about my post. Then he forwarded it to Dave Sumner, K1ZZ (who actually was listed as one of the recipeints in my original e-mail).  I was CCed on the e-mail. Here's Al's e-mail to Dave:

<cut>

Am I being BSed, or are Sumner & Co. all of a sudden changing their minds or coming clean, because of pressure from somebody who can hit them in the pocketbook?

As of now, I'm taking his response with a grain of salt.  Any input would be appreciated from you guys.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

I really don't think you stirred up any hornets nest with your e-ham post. It was one of the few that actually had sense to it. This is probably where you got the 66,000. I was going to respond to your eham post but forgot.
On November 10th, I said this: The ARRL Letter now distributes to more than 66,000 ARRL members each Friday.
On November 19th: I said this: The weekly ARRL Letter is e-mailed to over 66,000 recipients.
And the overall messages were quoted several times as participants responded to my posts.

Dave's point on the revised Region 2 band plan that it was adopted from the Region 1 band plan issued January 2006 was also stated here in this thread. The formed IARU B/C committee was chartered with the task of tweaking it for regional differences between Region 1 and Region 2.

Also, as Dave points out, the 160 M band plan is also a matter of record.
Excerpt from 160 M Ad Hoc Committee Report to BoD-July 2001 in regards to AM:
c.)AM Operation

The Committee received a large number of comments from the AM community and vintage equipment operators. The vast majority stated that they did not want any changes made regarding AM. There are established and recognized frequencies used on 160 for AM. For example, 1.945 MHz. has been used for almost 45 years. Also, 1.885 MHz and 1.925 MHz. are long established frequencies as well.

The Committee spent considerable time on this topic and considerable discussion was held directly with AM operators who sent messages to the Committee. Based upon this input, the Committee recommends no changes with respect to AM operation.

As a side note, during the review of AM operations, the Committee discussed whether to suggest that AM rag chewing be conducted above 1.900 MHz. While limiting rag chewing to frequencies above 1.900 MHz might be desirable, the majority of the Committee felt there should not be such a limit as it conflicted with the input received.

And in the Summary, Item 7:
AM operations continue to share the same band segment as SSB. No specific calling frequencies for AM operation should be identified.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 27, 2007, 05:20:26 AM
OK so the ARRL people say the plan does not apply to U.S. licensees, and that " IARU bandplans are merely recommendations to amateurs in countries that do not have such government agencies." according to one Director who is trying to tamp down concerns.

But I can't seem to find out which countries have requested the Region 2 plan on that basis, and specifically, why the request, if there was one, had to include enumerated bandwidths.

Who came up with that idea?
I cannot find any mandate to provide a basis, and the idea of passing a regional band plan as a simple "do good" deed seems suspect given the stealthy nature of what went on in Brazil.

One theory from The Concerned is that there is a trifecta in the works: Region 1/bandwidths, now Region 2/bandwidths.  Once Region 3 gets on board, the International Telecommunications Union could be asked for a more formal recognition, possibly a "Recommendation" which could, in turn, become an ITU treaty among signatories.

Evidence includes the IARU's convenient re-alignment of its regions to match those of the ITU, and the recent disclosure that the specific bandwidths enumerated in the Region 2 plan descend from an ITU document.

Then of course, you've got your parallels to the U.S., where the League has failed to attain regulatory power it wanted for voluntary band plans, failed to muster adequate support for its bandwidth scheme, and saw a bandwidth-limiting petition fail at the FCC.

End run ? Who can answer except those who are pushing it.

We have not heard anything from a chief proponent, ARRL technology lobbyist Paul Rinaldo.  Maybe ask him, he won't answer me.

--Paul/VJB


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 27, 2007, 05:38:15 AM
Good Morning Everyone,

 It's always best to Finish the Job, if your gona come "Clean" tell the whole story man.

 And while everybody's interest is peeked..Directors members etc of the league, let's get on with dealing with the on air Modal conflicts.

73 jack KA3ZLR.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: AF9J on November 27, 2007, 08:53:40 AM
I really don't think you stirred up any hornets nest with your e-ham post. It was one of the few that actually had sense to it. This is probably where you got the 66,000. I was going to respond to your eham post but forgot.
On November 10th, I said this: The ARRL Letter now distributes to more than 66,000 ARRL members each Friday.
On November 19th: I said this: The weekly ARRL Letter is e-mailed to over 66,000 recipients.
And the overall messages were quoted several times as participants responded to my posts.


Thanks Pete,

I posted an apology for my error, on the e-ham thread.

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 27, 2007, 09:08:09 AM
Hey Ellen, at least you got a response to your letter. I got NADA. :'( As the saying goes, "The tenderest nerve is found directly behind the bullseye!"


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: K6JEK on November 27, 2007, 11:33:25 AM
CQ editorial this month blasts the band plan.  "Here We Go Again", page 8, December issue.   In the opening paragraph

    " ... it (the ARRL) appears to be doing an end-run around not only its members but the FCC as well."

It goes on to say that the ARRL calls the tune at the IARU, so any "gosh look what those guys did"  is disingenuous.

I do believe the editorial misquotes President Reagan.   Wasn't it "There you go again."  not "Here we go again" ?

Jon


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 27, 2007, 02:12:32 PM
CQ editorial this month blasts the band plan.  "Here We Go Again", page 8, December issue.   In the opening paragraph

    " ... it (the ARRL) appears to be doing an end-run around not only it's members but the FCC as well."

It goes on to say that the ARRL calls the tune at the IARU, so any "gosh look what those guys did"  is disingenuous.

I do believe the editorial misquotes President Reagan.   Wasn't it "There you go again."  not "Here we go again" ?

Jon

And, you believe that's all that was in error with the editorial. I suspect Rich only saw the initially released plan and not the revised plan dated October 16, 2007. Probably had printer deadlines to meet.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 27, 2007, 03:31:57 PM
Yeah, probably :o


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 27, 2007, 03:34:44 PM
Come on guys, it's only voluntary and the ARRL had no input. They only sent people to the meeting to work on their tans. There's nothing to worry about. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 27, 2007, 03:45:17 PM
An accurate Ronald Reagan quote to keep in mind:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 27, 2007, 03:54:09 PM
Riley Hollingsworth, the FCC's Special Council for Amateur Radio Enforcement, has defined "Good Amateur Practice" to include following published bandplans.       Steve WD8DAS

From    http://ws8rm.ifip.com/goodamateur.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Good Amateur Practice is a hard thing to define. I'd have to say it's operating with the realization that frequencies are shared, that there's going to be occasional interference and that's no reason to become hateful and paranoid. You have to
realize that more people listen than ever before, especially since the events on 11 September, and our rights end where another person's begins."

"It means giving a little ground even if you have a right not to, in order to help preserve Amateur Radio and not cause it to get a bad name or hasten the day when it becomes obsolete."

"It means not using that one Kenwood rig on 6kHz bandwidth when there are lots of people on the band."

"It means not acting like an idiot just because you were stepped on. It means being aware that we all love Amateur Radio, and why damage it just to save face?"

"It means cutting a net or a contester a break even if you don't have to and even if you have no interest whatsoever in nets or contesting."

"It means being nice, because one thing we don't need more of are idiots in the radio world.  Now this doesn't touch on a lot of technical issues such as using 1,500 watts when your signal report received is 20 over 9."

"It just means a lot of things that can't be qualified, such as respecting a band plan because it makes it possible for every mode to have a chance."

"It means operating so that if a neighbor, niece or nephew or news reporter hears you, that person is impressed with Amateur Radio."

"It means realizing that every right carries responsibilities, and just because you may have a right to do certain things doesn't mean it's right to do them in every circumstance."

"It means just because you haven't done a creative thing in Amateur Radio in 25 years, and have been on the same frequency every morning for 135 years shooting the breeze with Harry, who's 200 miles away, doesn't mean you own the frequency."

"It also means NOT operating so whoever hears you becomes sorry as hell they ever got into Amateur Radio in the first place."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -







Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: KF1Z on November 27, 2007, 04:14:07 PM
An accurate Ronald Reagan quote to keep in mind:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."


Or,
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose....."
JJ



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 27, 2007, 07:56:53 PM
OK Guys,

It looks like I stirred up a little bit of a Hornets Nest, when I posted on the e-Ham IARU band plan thread the e-mail I sent out.

Could you let us know the url for the e-Ham IARU band plan thread?  They have such a long, confusing list of forums that I never could find it.  The only one that seems relevant to the topic is the "Licensing" forum, but I didn't see it there.  I have seen a couple of threads on the subject on QRZ.com, but not on e-ham.

BTW, here is the CQ editorial in PDF format:

http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/Zero_Bias_Dec07.pdf


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 27, 2007, 08:17:45 PM
Here it is Don,

But once you get halfway down, it degenerates into a new vs old ham radio flamefest.

http://www.eham.net/articles/18030

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 27, 2007, 08:18:56 PM
Be prepared to laugh out loud at some of the comments.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on November 27, 2007, 08:24:30 PM
Yeah Pete,

They are kind of dumb, aren't they?

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 27, 2007, 09:29:45 PM
Wow that eham thread is a mess!  The best comment I saw in a quick scan was

"Ham radio will survive just fine without the ARRL, as it has over the past 20 years. We simply just don't need them anymore.  73 de W4LGH - Alan"

Steve



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: K6JEK on November 28, 2007, 02:22:53 AM
Oof.  That thread makes me want to throw in the towel on the hobby.  Luckily, I can come back here for rejuvenation, here and on the air with a few smart, civil folks.  And, of course, I just can't stop soldering.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 28, 2007, 03:40:12 AM
Same here, i have walked away many times. Pushed it all back..went for a bike ride...or did something with the kids..walk away disgusted...then that free moment comes around and you walk over to the bench, ya i was working on that LO chain, i never did get that 1296 beacon finished..what's the latest on Downeast Microwave..etc...i don't know what's going on on HF...start turning everything on again..

I don't know what the point is behind compliant bandwidth bandplans or limiting anything, but i do know when people have a question and they're looking for stewardship from the leadership let's drop the titles and start communicating...isn't that what communicators do..

jack KA3ZLR.

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 28, 2007, 05:26:50 AM
Jack you're right on about "titles."

I already had been thinking about how pompous and self-aggrandizing the IARU administrative structure seems, with terms like "international secretariat," and "most esteemed worthy seer and advisor" in there. OK I made up the last one, but you get the point.

The problem is that these guys get free trips to Brazil, Geneva and wherever else over the years, and make significant inroads at important places like the ITU, whose people probably don't know that it's just "hams" primarily from a little non-profit publishing group.

These has-beens or still-ares operate without supervision or guidance as they pursue their own agendas, and we are left to react to them and try to mitigate the mess they often make, as with this damn band plan.

The best we can do is see to it they are smacked down hard and publicly, as we are doing, by posting/circulating/writing as much as possible when we find it out.

As  the roach, they scatter when the lights are turned on.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 28, 2007, 11:09:03 AM

The problem is that these guys get free trips to Brazil, Geneva and wherever else over the years, and make significant inroads at important places like the ITU, whose people probably don't know that it's just "hams" primarily from a little non-profit publishing group.

I loved being in management when I was in the corporate world. Great restaurants, great entertainment arenas (bars), great hotels, visit places that you might never get to see otherwise, etc. Life was good. Of course, some times you had to work a bit. Expense vouchers could be very creative. But we made "big" decisions and "deals" with our customers and business partners.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 28, 2007, 01:58:06 PM
I loved being in management when I was in the corporate world. Great restaurants, great entertainment arenas (bars), great hotels, visit places that you might never get to see otherwise, etc. Life was good. Of course, some times you had to work a bit. Expense vouchers could be very creative. But we made "big" decisions and "deals" with our customers and business partners.

Also explains why the 'boot' met your butt early! Sorry Pete, couldn't resist that one! Being from the same corporate world but 'in the trenches' on the maintenance side of the house made life much safer for me. We never had any fat to cut! We were considered a total loss in dollars but a necessary evil.

Mack

Ah, but what a "sweet" boot it was. I even got them for a retirement gift since on the 59th day I announced my retirement. Under my vested umbrella, I had 60 days to find a new position within the company. This isn't the thread but, sometime in the future, we can hash the perils and strategies of someone would might face a "Forced Management Process" (FMP) or the other numerous names it's known by.

Now as sole proprietor entrepreneur, this management position has it own pluses. Of course, it's a lot harder to finger-point when things don't go as expected.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 28, 2007, 07:56:03 PM
Jack you're right on about "titles."

I already had been thinking about how pompous and self-aggrandizing the IARU administrative structure seems, with terms like "international secretariat," and "most esteemed worthy seer and advisor" in there. OK I made up the last one, but you get the point.

The problem is that these guys get free trips to Brazil, Geneva and wherever else over the years, and make significant inroads at important places like the ITU, whose people probably don't know that it's just "hams" primarily from a little non-profit publishing group.

These has-beens or still-ares operate without supervision or guidance as they pursue their own agendas, and we are left to react to them and try to mitigate the mess they often make, as with this damn band plan.

The best we can do is see to it they are smacked down hard and publicly, as we are doing, by posting/circulating/writing as much as possible when we find it out.

As  the roach, they scatter when the lights are turned on.




Good Evening Paul and Everyone,

 How are you Paul hows the Family OM hope all is well....I have given this some further thought today and I would like to Finish this I guess on this note,,: The Organization is Crafted to their benefit, that's a given...It Must Be Nice....um, myself i wouldn't be able to sleep at night..and my meaning is . when there is such a rift as this moving through the realm of the service, and the decisions that were made have the possibility of such serious impact to the service future, it demands explanation...Complete explanation, Not Don't worry about it....No, We are licensed with the charge of Polite Stewardship of the privilege's granted by the authorities, and this license carries with it the responsibility that each of us work towards the common good of the Service.

Evidently there are calls out there that forgo some of the originating Concepts that made the Service desirable to take part.... This League reminds me to much of what we the free are witnessing with our corporate empire, the originating Concept was Never to Reflect or adopt civilian agenda.

I am Done Paul, all I asked is Answers to the questions produced, tactful stewardship to the mass of our service, and responsible leadership....I am Not seeing it...

It looks better when we work together as one.....

Thank You OM.

jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 28, 2007, 09:55:06 PM
Jack you're right on about "titles."

I already had been thinking about how pompous and self-aggrandizing the IARU administrative structure seems, with terms like "international secretariat," and "most esteemed worthy seer and advisor" in there. OK I made up the last one, but you get the point.

The problem is that these guys get free trips to Brazil, Geneva and wherever else over the years, and make significant inroads at important places like the ITU, whose people probably don't know that it's just "hams" primarily from a little non-profit publishing group.

These has-beens or still-ares operate without supervision or guidance as they pursue their own agendas, and we are left to react to them and try to mitigate the mess they often make, as with this damn band plan.

The best we can do is see to it they are smacked down hard and publicly, as we are doing, by posting/circulating/writing as much as possible when we find it out.

As  the roach, they scatter when the lights are turned on.




and my meaning is . when there is such a rift as this moving through the realm of the service, and the decisions that were made have the possibility of such serious impact to the service future, it demands explanation...Complete explanation, Not Don't worry about it....No, We are licensed with the charge of Polite Stewardship of the privilege's granted by the authorities, and this license carries with it the responsibility that each of us work towards the common good of the Service.

jack KA3ZLR.

What "rift" are you referring to in your statement Jack?
And you said, "it demands explanation...Complete explanation"
What additional explanation does one need that hasn't been already documented by the ARRL President and CEO in various e-mails that are quoted in a number of pages in this thread.
We already know that the voluntary IARU band plan (or any band plan for that matter) have no legal authority over us. The FCC provides all our amateur radio rules and regulations. It was already stated by the ARRL ,when they pulled RM-11306, that they might in the future, revisit the issue of regulation by bandwidth. The ARRL President has already stated in an e-mail posted here, that the Board of Directors have no plans to bring it up as an agenda item in Jan. 2008. I see no changes to my operating patterns come 1/1/08.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 28, 2007, 10:21:09 PM
Pete said:
Quote
We already know that the voluntary IARU band plan (or any band plan for that matter) have no legal authority over us.

In the same breath, Sumner said it wasn't for us. That being the case, who was it for? And why did the ARRgghhL present it on behalf of a country other than the US?? ???


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 28, 2007, 11:56:37 PM
Pete said:
Quote
We already know that the voluntary IARU band plan (or any band plan for that matter) have no legal authority over us.

In the same breath, Sumner said it wasn't for us. That being the case, who was it for? And why did the ARRgghhL present it on behalf of a country other than the US?? ???

I have no idea where you got the idea the ARRL "presented it on behalf of a country other than the US"

The ARRL did not propose this plan.
In Sumner's response to AF9J and W1UX, (Reply 476), he said:
"The fact that the new  Region 2 band plan did not originate with the ARRL will be clear if you look at the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005. See http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm (http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm) and compare it with the new Region 2 plan."

And further, the IARU said in their final report:
"the revised Region 2 band plan was modeled after the Region 1 band plan, which became effective January 2006:
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf
and further it says: "with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community"


The B/C subcommittee (Rinaldo as secretary) had the charge to model the revised Region 2 band plan to the Region 1 band plan already in existence. The secretary generally is the person who gathers all the committee member discussion input and prepares the final document for presentation to the overall IARU. In some committee circles, the secretary of the committee also does the presentation to the overall organization. In this capacity, Rinaldo would have presented, not for the ARRL but for the sub-committee for which he is secretary.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 29, 2007, 04:36:02 AM
I see.
Immaculate Conception.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 29, 2007, 05:27:43 AM
Jack you're right on about "titles."

I already had been thinking about how pompous and self-aggrandizing the IARU administrative structure seems, with terms like "international secretariat," and "most esteemed worthy seer and advisor" in there. OK I made up the last one, but you get the point.

The problem is that these guys get free trips to Brazil, Geneva and wherever else over the years, and make significant inroads at important places like the ITU, whose people probably don't know that it's just "hams" primarily from a little non-profit publishing group.

These has-beens or still-ares operate without supervision or guidance as they pursue their own agendas, and we are left to react to them and try to mitigate the mess they often make, as with this damn band plan.

The best we can do is see to it they are smacked down hard and publicly, as we are doing, by posting/circulating/writing as much as possible when we find it out.

As  the roach, they scatter when the lights are turned on.




and my meaning is . when there is such a rift as this moving through the realm of the service, and the decisions that were made have the possibility of such serious impact to the service future, it demands explanation...Complete explanation, Not Don't worry about it....No, We are licensed with the charge of Polite Stewardship of the privilege's granted by the authorities, and this license carries with it the responsibility that each of us work towards the common good of the Service.

jack KA3ZLR.

What "rift" are you referring to in your statement Jack?
And you said, "it demands explanation...Complete explanation"
What additional explanation does one need that hasn't been already documented by the ARRL President and CEO in various e-mails that are quoted in a number of pages in this thread.
We already know that the voluntary IARU band plan (or any band plan for that matter) have no legal authority over us. The FCC provides all our amateur radio rules and regulations. It was already stated by the ARRL ,when they pulled RM-11306, that they might in the future, revisit the issue of regulation by bandwidth. The ARRL President has already stated in an e-mail posted here, that the Board of Directors have no plans to bring it up as an agenda item in Jan. 2008. I see no changes to my operating patterns come 1/1/08.



 Good Morning Pete and everyone,

  Ok I slept on it,...i have my morning coffee..."the Rift" is the obvious fall out these last so many pages, and i am pointing to the forum here i've read others elsewhere, i see questions without answers, i seen actions without input, and i watched and read the comment about "ignorance"... I have a problem with that OM, let's stick to the present activity as you state, I am only ignorant to the Facts i'm missing.

 Why would any Licensed Amateur voluntarily take part, design or speerhead a voluntary agreement the has such possible limiting capabilities in representing the United States, then state it is to be ignored as voluntary compliance only...there's a Questionable Duality in existence now........why would you do that Pete..I wouldn't do that.. what would lead someone to do this...if the concern is to bring other countries into some compliance or offer a base line for their present and future business and or Amateur Service then it is to that countries business to do so...that's fine....., Our regulations are the mandate, should remain the mandate, and should have been stated as the mandate on "Our behalf" first and always IMO....such agreement is in place to be ignored and left in tact right...just walk away now it means nothing.

 All i know is what i've witnessed the actions from the league participants that generate to many questions on my behalf right...

 When I can make peace with an authority I become an authority I can't read minds..


jack KA3ZLR.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 08:36:06 AM
Did the ARRL vote or otherwise argue against it?


Pete said:
Quote
We already know that the voluntary IARU band plan (or any band plan for that matter) have no legal authority over us.

In the same breath, Sumner said it wasn't for us. That being the case, who was it for? And why did the ARRgghhL present it on behalf of a country other than the US?? ???

I have no idea where you got the idea the ARRL "presented it on behalf of a country other than the US"

The ARRL did not propose this plan.
In Sumner's response to AF9J and W1UX, (Reply 476), he said:
"The fact that the new  Region 2 band plan did not originate with the ARRL will be clear if you look at the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005. See http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm (http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm) and compare it with the new Region 2 plan."

And further, the IARU said in their final report:
"the revised Region 2 band plan was modeled after the Region 1 band plan, which became effective January 2006:
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf
and further it says: "with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community"


The B/C subcommittee (Rinaldo as secretary) had the charge to model the revised Region 2 band plan to the Region 1 band plan already in existence. The secretary generally is the person who gathers all the committee member discussion input and prepares the final document for presentation to the overall IARU. In some committee circles, the secretary of the committee also does the presentation to the overall organization. In this capacity, Rinaldo would have presented, not for the ARRL but for the sub-committee for which he is secretary.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 02:21:56 PM
Why would any Licensed Amateur voluntarily take part, design or speerhead a voluntary agreement the has such possible limiting capabilities in representing the United States, then state it is to be ignored as voluntary compliance only...there's a Questionable Duality in existence now

You said "take part" - ARRL is a member of IARU Region 2; why wouldn't they take part in IARU activities.
You said "design" - The revised voluntary Region 2 band plan design is rooted in the Region 1 band plan put into motion January 2006.
You said "spearhead a voluntary agreement" - I've seen no evidence that they spearheaded this agreement.

Quote
......why would you do that Pete..I wouldn't do that.. what would lead someone to do this...if the concern is to bring other countries into some compliance or offer a base line for their present and future business and or Amateur Service then it is to that countries business to do so...that's fine....., Our regulations are the mandate, should remain the mandate, and should have been stated as the mandate on "Our behalf" first and always IMO....such agreement is in place to be ignored and left in tact right...just walk away now it means nothing.

The IARU B/C committee was chartered with developing a voluntary revised Region 2 band plan patterned after the existing voluntary Region 1 band plan. In my opinion, discussing countries who already have government regulated amateur radio rules and regulations was not the issue in developing this voluntary band plan. There are a number of countries who do not have similar government type regulations. Several countries within Region 2 have already adopted what was presented in the Region 1 plan almost two years ago. After 1/1/08, all amateurs who visit these countries which do not have government mandated rules and regulations, for vacation, contests, or whatever, can now operate with a similar script. Likewise, the common identification of  emergency net frequencies for all countries within Region 1 and Region 2 was long overdue and would be extremely useful in times of disasters.

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 02:38:56 PM
Did the ARRL vote or otherwise argue against it?

I see no point in them doing that. IARU Region 2 membership chartered the B/C Committee to develop the plan after the Region 1 plan already in existence. ARRL already knew the FCC's rules would take precedence of any voluntary band plan. FCC already told them that 8 years ago. Since it would have no impact on our operating habits, why not be a "team player", and go along with the plan. In the long run, it may also help U. S. amateurs visiting these countries to do some temporary operating to secure a license and operating privileges, if the ARRL had no objection to the voluntary plan. As I said in an earlier post,  the common identification of  emergency net frequencies for all countries within Region 1 and Region 2 was long overdue and would be extremely useful in times of disasters.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 29, 2007, 03:14:01 PM
Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 29, 2007, 03:30:36 PM
Why be afraid to cast a dissenting vote, really?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 05:29:13 PM
You didn't answer the question, again.

I didn't ask if you saw any point in casting a dissenting vote, I asked if the ARRL voted against the band plan. We know they did vote for it, thus they must support the band plan. Or do they, since they also say it's just voluntary and doesn't apply to US amateurs (i.e. non-support), not too worry and other such blather?

This incongruity leads me to conclude that their vote either means nothing (and by extension their representation of US amateur radio to the IARU) because they voted for something they really didn't support or they didn't have the integrity or courage to vote against it. Either way, their actions appear unprincipled and/or disingenuous. At the very least it is illogical and unsupportable by any reasoned argument.




Did the ARRL vote or otherwise argue against it?

I see no point in them doing that. IARU Region 2 membership chartered the B/C Committee to develop the plan after the Region 1 plan already in existence. ARRL already knew the FCC's rules would take precedence of any voluntary band plan. FCC already told them that 8 years ago. Since it would have no impact on our operating habits, why not be a "team player", and go along with the plan. In the long run, it may also help U. S. amateurs visiting these countries to do some temporary operating to secure a license and operating privileges, if the ARRL had no objection to the voluntary plan. As I said in an earlier post,  the common identification of  emergency net frequencies for all countries within Region 1 and Region 2 was long overdue and would be extremely useful in times of disasters.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 05:42:00 PM
You didn't answer the question, again.

I didn't ask if you saw any point in casting a dissenting vote, I asked if the ARRL voted against the band plan. We know they did vote for it, thus they must support the band plan. Or do they, since they also say it's just voluntary and doesn't apply to US amateurs (i.e. non-support), not too worry and other such blather?

This incongruity leads me to conclude that their vote either means nothing (and by extension their representation of US amateur radio to the IARU) because they voted for something they really didn't support or they didn't have the integrity or courage to vote against it. Either way, their actions appear unprincipled and/or disingenuous. At the very least it is illogical and unsupportable by any reasoned argument.

I see no reason why you can't support a plan even though your existing rules prevent you from using the plan even if you wanted to. It's obvious that IARU Region 2 reps felt the already in existence Region 1 voluntary band plan had enough merit to modify the existing Region 2 plan along similar lines. Personally, if I was in a voting position, I would have voted the same way.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 05:44:11 PM
Why be afraid to cast a dissenting vote, really?

I see no point to it especially since our own rules would preempt any voluntary band plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 29, 2007, 05:48:43 PM
Also posted to the AM Reflector.

Frankly I don't care which among ARRL officials passed along a specific bandwidth number at the IARU conference in Brazil. It should not have been uttered without clearing it with U.S. licensees expecting to support the Region 2 plan.

The concept of using specific numbers is wrong when applied to the Amateur Service, and should now be challenged and revised OUT of both the Region 1 and Region 2 plans as inappropriate.

Ramón, XE1KK, an IARU rep from Mexico, was so kind as to return my call as I struggled to find anyone who was at the table in Brazil. The U.S. delegates were not returning phone calls, and I knew action need to be taken quickly, so I stepped around League officials and connected with several non-U.S. delegates.

Ramón expressed dismay when I recounted a brief history of failed ARRL attempts domestically to achieve what they apparently had won at the IARU. A failed bandwidth Petition withdrawn because of opposition expressed to the FCC; an FCC Order against the League's request to impose the force of law to voluntary band plans, and the failure of a Petition to the FCC to impose bandwidth limitations.

So when I asked him where the bandwidth specifications came from in the IARU Region 2 plan, he said (rough quote, notes not in front of me) "That was Paul Rinaldo. He was concerned about people running wider than that."

Another non-U.S. delegate confirmed the information that Ramón had volunteered, and the context in which it was conveyed.

The context, which is hard to misconstrue twice, is that Rinaldo presented the number without any accompanying documentation as a basis it would be appropriate in the plan being discussed in Brazil.

And, just like other modifications and adaptations that make the Region 2 plan different than the earlier plan in Region 1, there was and should have been discussion by the club representing ALL U.S. licensees (per the IARU charter), that there is a strong, vibrant community of people in Region 2 who enjoy AM, and whose operations should be placed in the main table recognizing other activities and modes.

To that end, the League failed its constituents in Brazil, and by not immediately amending that error, continues to be of disservice.

More broadly, the ARRL, as the most influential policy force among IARU clubs, has failed to push back on needless specifications that will confuse rather than complement a voluntary band plan we all wish to support.

It is my contention that the ARRL is actually behind the bandwidth push for the reasons we've already discussed in great detail.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 29, 2007, 05:51:37 PM
Good Evening,

Thus Begins the conflict, our own rules, voluntary bandplan, left hand, right hand.
By these very discussions any outsider would question the need, why would anybody support a conflicting argument and the collective that creates it.

I described it right.."there is a Questionable Duality in Existence now"....a questionable parallel, cause for decision making inlue of. a reason to bring it to another forum, a foothold...

jack KA3ZLR


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 29, 2007, 06:21:31 PM
Paul said:
Quote
It is my contention that the ARRL is actually behind the bandwidth push for the reasons we've already discussed in great detail.

Now I wish this would be presented to the (be)League(d) rep who stated "...a few AM collegues...". I'm glad you have the credentials and the resources Paul, to bring this stuff to light. This consistent 'swearing allegiance to the ARRgghhL' is nothing short of lunacy! Two different sources confirm that (be)League(d) officials pushed this plan through. Though the same organization still claims it doesn't apply to us. Still no answer to why. And Pete before you say "to be in line with Reg. 1," just because it is there, doesn't mean that it has to be applicable here! Its the old "Would you jump off the bridge" logic. One thing this clearly demonstrates, is that since there has been such an uproar over this "bandplan", I am positive that the (be)Leage(d) lost any amount of integrity and creditability it had with the other participating countries. Hell they probably view them now as nothing more than a gadfly organization!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 08:19:06 PM
So now it's the "Well, all the other kids were doing it" excuse. As I said, illogical and unsupportable by any reasoned argument.



I see no reason why you can't support a plan even though your existing rules prevent you from using the plan even if you wanted to. It's obvious that IARU Region 2 reps felt the already in existence Region 1 voluntary band plan had enough merit to modify the existing Region 2 plan along similar lines. Personally, if I was in a voting position, I would have voted the same way.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 08:21:40 PM
Tom, it makes sense when you consider the ARRL is more interested in what the other IARU members think than what US amateurs think (they very group they are supposed to represent). Yet another illustration of their disconnection from reality.


Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 08:54:24 PM
I firmly believe that International amateur radio issues should not, and can not be ignored nor cast aside just because we are U. S. amateurs. As long as the IARU sits at the ITU table, the U. S. needs to be party to the decision making going on at the IARU even though FCC rules take precedence over all our amateur radio activities.

I don't believe it's a "disconnection from reality" but more like a "reality wake-up".


Tom, it makes sense when you consider the ARRL is more interested in what the other IARU members think than what US amateurs think (they very group they are supposed to represent). Yet another illustration of their disconnection from reality.


Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 09:27:38 PM
Ramón, XE1KK, an IARU rep from Mexico, was so kind as to return my call as I struggled to find anyone who was at the table in Brazil. The U.S. delegates were not returning phone calls, and I knew action need to be taken quickly, so I stepped around League officials and connected with several non-U.S. delegates.

Ramón expressed dismay when I recounted a brief history of failed ARRL attempts domestically to achieve what they apparently had won at the IARU. A failed bandwidth Petition withdrawn because of opposition expressed to the FCC; an FCC Order against the League's request to impose the force of law to voluntary band plans, and the failure of a Petition to the FCC to impose bandwidth limitations.

So when I asked him where the bandwidth specifications came from in the IARU Region 2 plan, he said (rough quote, notes not in front of me) "That was Paul Rinaldo. He was concerned about people running wider than that."

It's already being documented several times in this thread and elsewhere that his comments have been "misrepresented" "by a certain U. S. amateur". Unless you can get Ramon to come here and state what was actually said, your entire text above is questionable.

The bandwidth specifications were already specified, including AM, in the revised Region 1 voluntary band plan issued in January 2006. Why would Rinaldo specify bandwidth specifications for Region 2 when the charter for the B/C Committee was to develop a revised Region 2 band plan modeled from the Region 1 plan already in existence?


Quote
Another non-U.S. delegate confirmed the information that Ramón had volunteered, and the context in which it was conveyed.

The context, which is hard to misconstrue twice, is that Rinaldo presented the number without any accompanying documentation as a basis it would be appropriate in the plan being discussed in Brazil.

Now we have an "unnamed" non-U.S. delegate in the discussion. "Mystery person"
And, again I ask; why would Rinaldo present a number (which turns out to be the same number) that was already given (Region 1 band plan) before they developed the revised Region 2 band plan.


Quote
It is my contention that the ARRL is actually behind the bandwidth push for the reasons we've already discussed in great detail.

Based on past experience, we already know some of the reasons why the ARRL and others see the merits of some 'regulation by bandwidth" under the FCC's control. In reviewing all the voluntary IARU band plans, it seems that many member countries also have no problem with bandwidth controls.

But, if you want to follow a voluntary band plan with no specified bandwidths, you can go here:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html (http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 09:29:41 PM
It's clearly a case of disconnection from reality since I never said International issues should be cast aside. The ARRL is there to represent US issues to the IARU. And since they are the ones saying the BP is only voluntary and changes nothing, they are the ones casting aside international concerns while simultaneously casting aside US concerns. That's a twofer on the useless scale and totally disconnected from any reality, international or US. On this the ARRL is unsupportable by any reasoned argument.




I firmly believe that International amateur radio issues should not, and can not be ignored nor cast aside just because we are U. S. amateurs. As long as the IARU sits at the ITU table, the U. S. needs to be party to the decision making going on at the IARU even though FCC rules take precedence over all our amateur radio activities.

I don't believe it's a "disconnection from reality" but more like a "reality wake-up".


Tom, it makes sense when you consider the ARRL is more interested in what the other IARU members think than what US amateurs think (they very group they are supposed to represent). Yet another illustration of their disconnection from reality.


Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 09:32:15 PM
Further flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, you provide no support for your premise the Region 2 BP MUST follow the Region 1 BP. Utter illogic.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 29, 2007, 10:05:23 PM
Further flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, you provide no support for your premise the Region 2 BP MUST follow the Region 1 BP. Utter illogic.

Never said "must follow" (reading too fast ;D)
See Region 2 Final Report:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/news-release-final-plenaryeng.pdf (http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/news-release-final-plenaryeng.pdf)
Page 2: "The Report of Committee B/C..."
First bullet item


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 10:25:46 PM
Still waiting for the support to your premise.

Your words:

Quote
It's obvious that IARU Region 2 reps felt the already in existence Region 1 voluntary band plan had enough merit to modify the existing Region 2 plan along similar lines. Personally, if I was in a voting position, I would have voted the same way.

So what is the merit you speak of? Please describe how this merit is in the best interests of US amateurs.



Further flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, you provide no support for your premise the Region 2 BP MUST follow the Region 1 BP. Utter illogic.

Never said "must follow" (reading too fast ;D)
See Region 2 Final Report:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/news-release-final-plenaryeng.pdf (http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/news-release-final-plenaryeng.pdf)
Page 2: "The Report of Committee B/C..."
First bullet item


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed - N3LHB on November 29, 2007, 11:23:32 PM
Did someone mention logic?

The ARRL seems to be out of their vulcan mind, supporting a bandplan that limits bw to 2.7 kc. Then, the next thing that happens is the bandplan seems to become good amateur practice, which then seems to become fcc law sooner or later.

Why would anyone who supports AM or any other any wideband mode support the ARRL's recommendation? Doesn't seem logical to me.

 



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 29, 2007, 11:28:39 PM
WA3VJB writes:

>Frankly I don't care which among ARRL officials passed
>along a specific bandwidth number at the IARU
>conference in Brazil.

But I continue to wonder why Rinaldo doesn't deny it himself - if he didn't actually propose that element of the bandplan. 

>The concept of using specific numbers is wrong when
>applied to the Amateur Service, and should now be
>challenged and revised OUT of both the Region 1 and
>Region 2 plans as inappropriate.

Good point - it is especially improper without any specs defining the bandwidth or how it is to be measured.

Steve WD8DAS






-


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on November 29, 2007, 11:37:01 PM

You know, looking back over the responses I've received from ARRL directors and officials, not one of them ever really addressed my contention that this sort of "restrictive", negative bandplan is not a good idea. They concentrated on the benefits of other, positive bandplans, those which enable a wide variety of modes to flourish.  But this IARU Region 2 plan cuts out existing modes and will make it harder for some future modes to be developed.

There's a parallel in another regulatory area that impacts ham radio:  zoning and restrictive covenants.  These regs and agreements can either be positive, protecting freedom of land use, within only wide limits, and ensuring that we can erect antennas and set up stations... or they can be negative, tightly controlling and limiting, blocking antennas and stations.  I think you know which kind is better for ham radio ops.  And the same is true for bandplans.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 29, 2007, 11:58:29 PM
Just remember: Narrow Bandwidth = Narrow Mind Width



You know, looking back over the responses I've received from ARRL directors and officials, not one of them ever really addressed my contention that this sort of "restrictive", negative bandplan is not a good idea. They concentrated on the benefits of other, positive bandplans, those which enable a wide variety of modes to flourish.  But this IARU Region 2 plan cuts out existing modes and will make it harder for some future modes to be developed.

There's a parallel in another regulatory area that impacts ham radio:  zoning and restrictive covenants.  These regs and agreements can either be positive, protecting freedom of land use, within only wide limits, and ensuring that we can erect antennas and set up stations... or they can be negative, tightly controlling and limiting, blocking antennas and stations.  I think you know which kind is better for ham radio ops.  And the same is true for bandplans.

Steve WD8DAS




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 30, 2007, 03:10:26 AM
Good Day Everyone,

 Also to be considered, is the same tactics that some of the government bodies controlled media etc use.."Attention Span"...there is a known that the public overall has a limited attention span, "Time" out of sight out of mind, case in point what color are we at with the danger level for the homeland, I don't know it hasn't been spoken of in a long while..
 
 It's a very worthy game these management tactics, skills, just ignore it, business as usual, yep, yes sir... I'm gone be 51 this year, i'm starting to feel the slowing down..reflexes are slower.. thoughts fade easier...they count on this believe me...


another thing, i like how when these things come to pass, i have read this "Us and Them" that's gotta stop...but it won't...after all these years and all the grief..you'd think by now we'd be over this...they make a move.. we get upset..they send out the damage control underlings...we come down with a sledge hammer...the smoke clears...

Unbelievable.....always a constant up hill battle...and the hell of it is we're all in the same army...

jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on November 30, 2007, 03:28:31 AM
...case in point what color are we at with the danger level for the homeland, I don't know it hasn't been spoken of in a long while...

Don't worry, we'll hear about it any day now.  An election's coming up.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 30, 2007, 09:05:36 AM
So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on November 30, 2007, 09:14:39 AM
Tom said:
Quote
So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.

Exactly!!!!!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 30, 2007, 12:41:36 PM
So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.

I did a search of this entire thread and see no reference to any mention of "AM interference".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: KF1Z on November 30, 2007, 01:02:40 PM
So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.

I did a search of this entire thread and see no reference to any mention of "AM interference".

"..Excuse me....  is this the right room for an argument?"

Python, Monty


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 30, 2007, 01:15:58 PM
This topic has now surpassed the previous number 1 most viewed topic.
 
The number of posts in this topic holds the number 1 spot by a 3:1 margin.

Statistics of the importance of the subject matter.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on November 30, 2007, 01:19:26 PM
Sorry you've paid for abuse.
Argument Clinic is down to the right.

(unless we argue in our spare time)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 30, 2007, 01:36:31 PM
Pete said "I did a search of this entire thread and see no reference to any mention of "AM interference".

I haven't seen any mention of AM interference here either Pete.  I am presuming that the plan's new restricted AM rules are to address such interference.   That is usually why such things are added to operating rules.  My comments refer to what logic has taken place in the IARU Region 2 proceedings, not based on comments in this forum.

Again, what countries were having AM interference in Region 2, or what countries have congestion to the point where they feel cutting in half the bandwidth of the few AM QSOs are on the band will alleviate their problem and on what band is this a problem?

For this forum it's mainly a rhetorical question unless someone here has objective information.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 30, 2007, 01:58:02 PM
This topic has now surpassed the previous number 1 most viewed topic.
 
The number of posts in this topic holds the number 1 spot by a 3:1 margin.

Statistics of the importance of the subject matter.

I remember when the counter clicked a hair over 8000 reads and wondered if we, with our friendly informative discussions, could drive it over 11.1K. I guess even "Guests" found interest in the topic. One evening last week I counted 29 guests at one time viewing the topic. Without a doubt, this is the forum to come and find informative, useful, creative, and current issue topics related to AM and amateur radio discussed in a rational manner.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 30, 2007, 02:25:14 PM
I haven't seen any mention of AM interference here either Pete.  I am presuming that the plan's new restricted AM rules are to address such interference.   That is usually why such things are added to operating rules.  My comments refer to what logic has taken place in the IARU Region 2 proceedings, not based on comments in this forum.

Again, what countries were having AM interference in Region 2, or what countries have congestion to the point where they feel cutting in half the bandwidth of the few AM QSOs are on the band will alleviate their problem and on what band is this a problem?

For this forum it's mainly a rhetorical question unless someone here has objective information.

I think you need to roll the question back to the Region 1 committee members who chose the numbers initially. If the ultimate plan of the IARU is to bring all three Regions into harmony with a common set of bandwidth numbers, Region 1 specified these numbers 2 years ago.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 30, 2007, 03:26:19 PM
No Pete, we don't need to "roll back" the question to Region 1.  Region 1 does not have the AM restriction that Region 2 adopted this past September.  The issue is solely a Region 2 and ARRL mis-behavior issue.  Paul Rinaldo is apparently at the forefront of this new AM-bandwidth limiting rule. 

IF there is no AM interference between Region 2 countries and no help in alleviating congestion by enacting the rule, why is it "needed" and adopted?

It is not too late for the IARU Region 2 officials to revise the new band plan and delete the AM restrictions from the HF bands.  The IARU can save face and not let the ARRL antics drag it down also.

There is no need for every region to have the same "world-harmonized" band plans.  That's the point to having regions and "regional representation".   Otherwise it's just the New World Odor.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 30, 2007, 04:04:25 PM
No Pete, we don't need to "roll back" the question to Region 1.  Region 1 does not have the AM restriction that Region 2 adopted this past September.  The issue is solely a Region 2 and ARRL mis-behavior issue.  Paul Rinaldo is apparently at the forefront of this new AM-bandwidth limiting rule. 

IF there is no AM interference between Region 2 countries and no help in alleviating congestion by enacting the rule, why is it "needed" and adopted?

It is not too late for the IARU Region 2 officials to revise the new band plan and delete the AM restrictions from the HF bands.  The IARU can save face and not let the ARRL antics drag it down also.

There is no need for every region to have the same "world-harmonized" band plans.  That's the point to having regions and "regional representation".   Otherwise it's just the New World Odor.

What Region 1 band plan are you looking at? The one I'm seeing has 2700 Hz maximum bandwidth for "All Modes" from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz.
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf (http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf)
Should I be looking at something different?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on November 30, 2007, 07:32:07 PM
Well Pete, if you don’t comprehend the difference in AM operations between the Region 1 and Region 2 band plans by now you may well have a reading comprehension deficiency. 

Otherwise, as a Region 1 bloke might say, “Are you daft?”

Pete, read page 4 of the Region 1 band plan again.  Let me know when you spot the difference to the Region 2 plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 30, 2007, 07:40:34 PM
This topic has now surpassed the previous number 1 most viewed topic.
 
The number of posts in this topic holds the number 1 spot by a 3:1 margin.

Statistics of the importance of the subject matter.

I remember when the counter clicked a hair over 8000 reads and wondered if we, with our friendly informative discussions, could drive it over 11.1K. I guess even "Guests" found interest in the topic. One evening last week I counted 29 guests at one time viewing the topic. Without a doubt, this is the forum to come and find informative, useful, creative, and current issue topics related to AM and amateur radio discussed in a rational manner.


Interesting,

 Could it be that the "ARRL is pushing a thinly veiled bandwidth proposal VIA the IARU" and more people are finding this out and might be concerned. I wonder why you shouldn't invite some of the prospective creators of such an agreement to an informative discussion here, you could facilitate the meeting and set the agenda.

Nothing wrong in a fact finding mission, it would be good for PR and settle all issues.

jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 30, 2007, 08:39:27 PM
Well Pete, if you don’t comprehend the difference in AM operations between the Region 1 and Region 2 band plans by now you may well have a reading comprehension deficiency. 

Otherwise, as a Region 1 bloke might say, “Are you daft?”

Pete, read page 4 of the Region 1 band plan again.  Let me know when you spot the difference to the Region 2 plan.

In the Region 1 band plan, page 4, Notes, it says: "Amplitude Modulation may be used in the telephony sub bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users."

The AM Mode is listed under "All Modes" on Page 3. However, the bandwidth limitation for "All Modes" from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz as listed in their chart is 2700 Hz. Only from 29.2 to 29.7 MHz is 6000 Hz maximum bandwidth listed on their chart.

Actually when the 1st revised Region 2 band plan was issued when we started this thread, most of the Region 2 plan, with regional and frequency differences taken into account, looked very similar to the Region 1 plan. It wasn't until October 16, 2007, several weeks after the first Region 2 plan was issued, that more AM segments were identified with an (*) and with the notation at the end stating "DSB AM Phone allowed in this segment with a maximum bandwidth of 6 KHz". This Note does not appear in the Region 1 plan.

When it comes to rules, regulations or band plans, I never assume what they don't state.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on November 30, 2007, 08:49:41 PM
Could it be that the "ARRL is pushing a thinly veiled bandwidth proposal VIA the IARU" and more people are finding this out and might be concerned. I wonder why you shouldn't invite some of the prospective creators of such an agreement to an informative discussion here, you could facilitate the meeting and set the agenda.

Nothing wrong in a fact finding mission, it would be good for PR and settle all issues.

jack KA3ZLR.

If you review the threads here, or do a word search, you'll find quoted e-mails from the ARRL President and ARRL CEO that answer a number of questions plus a number of members have received e-mail responses, reportedly talked on the phone, talked with their Directors, became members, lost 1/2 of their 160M dipole when a neighbor was cutting some tree branches and forgot it was there(Grrr), etc.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on November 30, 2007, 09:09:13 PM
Could it be that the "ARRL is pushing a thinly veiled bandwidth proposal VIA the IARU" and more people are finding this out and might be concerned. I wonder why you shouldn't invite some of the prospective creators of such an agreement to an informative discussion here, you could facilitate the meeting and set the agenda.

Nothing wrong in a fact finding mission, it would be good for PR and settle all issues.

jack KA3ZLR.

If you review the threads here, or do a word search, you'll find quoted e-mails from the ARRL President and ARRL CEO that answer a number of questions plus a number of members have received e-mail responses, reportedly talked on the phone, talked with their Directors, became members, lost 1/2 of their 160M dipole when a neighbor was cutting some tree branches and forgot it was there(Grrr), etc.


Now wait a minute Pete you mentioned rational behavior and creative postings..I made a rational request and you mentioned past posts...Past Posts are prologue.....LOL

We need a Union...LOL........


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on November 30, 2007, 10:47:09 PM
Quote
In the Region 1 band plan, page 4, Notes, it says: "Amplitude Modulation may be used in the telephony sub bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users."

This reveals much about those who wrote the band plan. The term channel is used. Must be a bunch of CBers!

It's also interesting that AM ops must give consideration to adjacent channel users, but to adjacent channel users must not give consideration to them. And when using other modes no consideration needs to be given to adjacent channel users.

Amazing stuff.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on November 30, 2007, 11:37:41 PM
In the Region 1 band plan, page 4, Notes, it says: "Amplitude Modulation may be used in the telephony sub bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users."

This is still a footnote that "allows" AM use on HF. Better than the Region 2 plan, by a lot. BUT we need to get EQUAL consideration as SSB not to be treated as a Special CASE....

PHONE IS PHONE IS PHONE 

so ALL VOICE telephony transmissions should all fall under the SAME rules. 

A3E = J3E  emmissions  See Below they are ALL AM modes!!!!

We don't need NEW rules, just use the existing ones Correctly, they DO cover enough modes...

Quote
The formula for the emmision designations, loosely from ITU radio
regulations 264 through 273, and Appendix 6, Part A, is:

[BBBB]MNI[DM],

where <SNIP>

M = Modulation Type

N   None
A   AM (Amplitude Modulation), double sideband, full carrier
H   AM, single sideband, full carrier
R   AM, single sideband, reduced or controlled carrier
J   AM, single sideband, suppressed carrier
B   AM, independent sidebands
C   AM, vestigial sideband  (commonly analog TV)

F   Angle-modulated, straight FM
G   Angle-modulated, phase modulation (common; sounds like FM)

D   Carrier is amplitude and angle modulated

P   Pulse, no modulation
K   Pulse, amplitude modulation (PAM, PSM)
L   Pulse, width modulation (PWM)
M   Pulse, phase or position modulation (PPM)
Q   Pulse, carrier also angle-modulated during pulse
W   Pulse, two or more modes used

X   All cases not covered above

N =  Nature of modulating signal

0   None
1   Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation
2   Digital, with modulation
3   Single analog channel
7   Two or more digital channels
8   Two or more analog channels
9   Composite, one or more digital channel, one or more analog

X   All cases not covered above


I = Information type

N   None
A   Aural telegraphy, for people (Morse code)
B   Telegraphy for machine copy (RTTY, fast Morse)
C   Analog fax
D   Data, telemetry, telecommand
E   Telephony, voice, sound broadcasting
F   Video, television
W   Combinations of the above

X   All cases not covered above




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 01, 2007, 12:05:00 AM
Notice that table of emissions includes full carrier AM but leaves out double sideband with reduced or suppressed carrier.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k1qar on December 01, 2007, 08:25:44 AM
The basis for a complaint to "de-certify" ARRL exists if one of the other Region 2 reps is willing to go on record verifying the  rumor that ARRL invented this plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W9GT on December 01, 2007, 08:40:09 AM

It's also interesting that AM ops must give consideration to adjacent channel users, but to adjacent channel users must not give consideration to them. And when using other modes no consideration needs to be given to adjacent channel users.

Amazing stuff.
[/quote]

This is what is known as the "diode effect".

It seems to me that all of this concern (from the ARRL, IARU, and others) about bandwidth is very misplaced in attempts to apply it to the amateur radio service.  We do not need to cram the maximum amount of "intelligence" into the minimum amount of space as money-driven commercial services do.  If anything, activity on the amateur bands has somewhat decreased recently.  We need to be free to experiment and to utilize our granted spectrum in ways that enable innovation and enjoyment of the radio art.  These continual efforts to regulate us into virtual oblivion are unwelcomed , at best. 

73,  Jack, W9GT


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 01, 2007, 12:21:40 PM
I can’t agree with you more Jack.  This is a hobby service, not a commercial global communications conglomerate as some people apparently believe.

I have been thinking lately about what non-radio hobby interests I have had in the past that should be re-activated, and about amateurs trying to legislate Amateurs.  I have lost a lot of respect for the ARRL, and I am losing respect for the IARU; hams arguing against hams, etcetera; and mostly due to a couple of old farts using their trusted positions for their personal agenda and/or decades-old personal vendettas.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on December 01, 2007, 12:35:34 PM
 A posting by Paul VJB on another list reminded me that I'd wanted to get back to the ARRL Great Lakes Director about his recent mass-email on the subject of the IARU bandplan changes...  I wrote him the following:


"Great Lakes ARRL Director" wrote:

> "The fact is that ARRL did not participate in
> developing this bandplan. We had no representation
> on the bandplan committee."

I believe you may be mistaken on this point.

The IARU report says

> "The report of Committee B/C, a combined technical
> and operational committee dealing with both HF and
> VHF/UHF matters, was received next. This committee was
> chaired by Ramón Santoyo, XE1KK, with Paul Rinaldo, W4RI
> serving as secretary. The Plenary adopted all of the
> Committee’s recommendations...

Paul Rinaldo is from the ARRL.

I've been following the changes to the IARU Region 2 bandplan closely since they suddenly popped on the scene. I wrote to IARU officials right after the word came out, and they clearly stated that the tight bandwidth limit came from Paul Rinaldo of the ARRL.    He was as saying "People are running too wide now."

I corresponded with League officials on this issue, and the President, Joel Harrison, and Dave Sumner, both confirmed that the ARRL was involved in the new bandplan.  So I believe your information that the League was not involved may be incorrect.

I am VERY much against such limits in a bandplan - tight regulation and restrictions like these goes completely against the experimental and innovative aspects of ham radio.  The plan as published does not match common practice on the bands today and would likely be ignored by thousands of operators in any case.  Note that the existing Region 2 bandplan did match current practice quite closely, yet it is being discarded.

But, voluntary or not, my position remains that we need no such plans restricting operation by bandwidth.  Bandplans like this have a history of increasing the stress among amateurs with arguments and finger-pointing.  And voluntary ones tend to become ever more "official" over time, so I think it is vital that we avoid tight restriction and limitation which could hinder our future communication options.  I feel it is vital that we err on the side of flexibility and less restrictions, rather than more and tighter controls that eliminate future choices.  If we are to remain viable as an organized hobby we've got to be open to a wide variety of modes, both old and new.

When I made my views known to ARRL officials, the response was defensiveness and condescension.  They've variously said that US hams needn't worry because it is "voluntary", because it is "really meant for other countries in Region 2", or the strange claim "the new plan is not really restrictive in nature".

I must disagree with the contention that IARU Region 2 bandplan does not matter for hams in the United States, and we need not worry about it.   The first paragraph of the plan itself defines its purpose:  IARU Member Societies (such as ARRL) are to work for its incorporation into authority (such as FCC) regulations.   And did not ARRL vote in support of that wording?   So I must conclude that the ARRL must support the eventual incorporation of this plan into the FCC rules.  Apparently it is important, after all...

If it is really meaningless to U.S. amateurs, then why does the League support it?  And why is ARRL spending thousands of dollars to attend the IARU meetings and participate in the drafting of these changes, if it is of no consequence to us?  Some of the responses I received expressed the hope that the new bandplan would help "control" the growth of old modes such as AM and new ones such as WinLink, at the same time telling my I shouldn't worry as it won't mean anything in the U.S. - a strange contradiction. 

ARRL represents our country in the IARU, so as a member of ARRL I thought I would have a voice in this process, or at least have been informed.  Clearly I was wrong.   It was done behind the scenes without consulting the membership in any way, and member efforts to discuss the matter have been viewed as ignorant interference.   There has been little or no information about the changes to this bandplan in QST, on the ARRL website, the ARRL-Letter, or elsewhere.  I've not seen any mention of the role ARRL is taking in this policy process either.   

One League official stated that we needn't expect a further effort by the ARRL to get bandwidth controls into FCC rules for at least two years - not until the League has had a chance to "educate" the members and other amateurs on the matter and get them on-board.  This view crystallizes the situation quite nicely.  There seems to be some confusion as to the role of the League, and that of the officers and directors.  Shouldn't the views of the members be the ARRL's first priority in the making of policy, rather than the last?  Or are League officials to set the course and we must follow along, sometimes with a bit of "education" to set us straight?

I'm very disappointed in the ARRL.  Whatever happened to the slogan "Of, by, and for the amateur?"

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on December 01, 2007, 12:48:48 PM
I find it amusing that the recent ARRL Letter has eleven long paragraphs on the revocation of a California ham's ticket on character issues, but cannot spare any space in there to explain their role in the IARU bandplan changes.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 01, 2007, 12:52:00 PM


Out of Sight, Out Of Mind.

Jack KA3ZLR.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 01, 2007, 01:22:48 PM
 "When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

  - Ayn Rand


I find it amusing that the recent ARRL Letter has eleven long paragraphs on the revocation of a California ham's ticket on character issues, but cannot spare any space in there to explain their role in the IARU bandplan changes.

Steve WD8DAS




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 01, 2007, 03:57:03 PM
Initially posted to SPAR's website and QRZ.com.
SPAR is a partner to amfone.net.
From Walt, W5ALT:
The following article by Alberto, LU1DZ translated to English is reprinted from the December 2008 SPAR Roundtable and was originally distributed (in Spanish) in Argentina by the UARC (Union of Argentinean Radio Clubs). Perhaps some of our LU friends also have concerns.

Radio Bulletin Nº 2 of the Union of Argentinean Radio Clubs. UARC 16-Nov-07

The Band Plan of the IARU

Recently a new band plan has been made public by the IARU Region 2, which was approved in the September meeting in the city of Brasilia. The plan, which seems to be a copy of the original plan that the ARRL tried to present to the FCC and which earned the rejection of its members, has generated various concerns, some very obvious and others frankly unthinkable.

It's all well and good that some local spokespeople have pointed out that it will not have an immediate effect in our country, which already has a band structure segmented by bandwidth of the emissions. The proposed plan is very similar to the plan pushed by the German DARC in Europe for Region I, which contains some essential elements that permits it to be generally acceptable. The Region II plan almost prohibits transmissions using AM mode and would generate some points of conflict with other modes that needs more study.

For its part SPAR, The Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio, a group of more than 900 amateurs that have joined together to assure that the technical aspects, as well as the spirit and feel of amateur radio will be available for future generations, has expressed their concern that the band plan would preclude space for experimenting with any mode that uses more than 2.7 kHz of bandwidth.

The SPAR statement continues:

In the US there are a large number of AM enthusiasts, who purchase and rebuild older equipment for use on the bands. This enthusiastic community firmly opposes both the flawed ARRL proposal as well as the IARU proposal for Region II. We wish it were not the case and that the IARU would authorize the use of AM emissions or at least remove the bandwidth limitation proposed.

The difference between the Region I plan and this one is that AM emissions are not limited in Region I whereas the Region II plan would need some clarifications before it could be presented to the authorities of each country.
It's all well that the band plans made by the IARU are not mandatory for any country, however it should not escape attention that these plans serve as a base of support to whatever each member society of the IARU might want to present in their specific country, moreover since the IARU urges the member societies to present the plan as a form of harmony with the objective of incorporating it into the regulations.

I think that the best explanation of why the IARU decided to make the needed changes in the original plan can be found in the following words of Hector M. Ombroni, LU6UO:
“From the beginning of time, the abuse of power over the wisdom of knowledge has brought grave consequences to all societies. At some point the degradation, in its final stage, destroys even the foundation that sustains it before recognizing its failure.”

The avalanche of "MERCHANDISING" in all areas of society is subjugating people and governments. It is not at all strange, then, that this is happening in the world of amateur radio.

When the prudent profit should be to invest in promoting deep understanding of the activities of their group, they do exactly the opposite, looking only at the present, of course motivated by the temptation of a future almost virgin market.

One glance at the medium or long term will encounter a large number of people speaking of trivialities, because for them the RIG is a magic box and an antenna is something from the War of the Galaxies, given the superlative ignorance to which they have been pushed.

There is no worse condition in a person than that of ignorance and not wanting to learn, because that deepens their slavery and increases their willingness to follow the orders of the few "Illuminati."

Some friends have expressed grave worries about the limitations imposed by this band plan and have asked if it is necessary that the IARU make these recommendations in view of the limited activity on the bands and have questioned the true objectives of these modifications to the current plans that up until now seem to be functioning reasonably well.

In that respect I recommend that they go directly to the UARC and their national radio clubs or at least to those responsible in each area of the IARU and make known to them their thoughts or opposition.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 01, 2007, 06:10:43 PM
Pete,

The chart is not the whole plan.  The band plan is the charts AND all of the text and the logic all of that together implies.  The Region 1 plan is 5 pages, the Region 2 plan is 4 pages.

The Region 2 plan is explicit in eliminating 6 kHz AM from 160, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 12 meters.

The Region 1 plan note allows AM on all HF bands where phone is allowed.  I have always assumed this is the “normal AM” of at least 6 kHz bandwidth.  Therefore the Region 1 plan allows normal AM on all HF bands.  The Region 2 plan does not, only in two 25 kHz segments on 80/75 and one segment on 10 meters.  This is a big difference.

If this is not the case, then what is the purpose of the note (rule) in the Region 1 plan meaning 2.7 kHz AM is to yield way to 2.7 kHz SSB?  Are you insisting this the correct meaning?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 01, 2007, 10:14:23 PM
Pete,

The chart is not the whole plan.  The band plan is the charts AND all of the text and the logic all of that together implies.  The Region 1 plan is 5 pages, the Region 2 plan is 4 pages.

The Region 2 plan is explicit in eliminating 6 kHz AM from 160, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 12 meters.

I will agree there is no mention of AM on 160, 17, 15, and 12 Meters.
However from the 1/1/08 Region 2 Chart:
40M 7100-7300 KHz - Bandwidth box has (*) - (*) allows DSB AM 6KHz (page 4, at top of page)
20M 14285-14300 KHz - Bandwidth box also has (*) - same rule
160M and 15M - My personal opinion is that the Committee, for whatever reason, omitted the (*) in the Bandwidth box for "All Modes".
17M and 12M are such narrow segments, to me it's a non-issue. They don't even allow contesting on these bands.


Quote
The Region 1 plan note allows AM on all HF bands where phone is allowed.  I have always assumed this is the “normal AM” of at least 6 kHz bandwidth.  Therefore the Region 1 plan allows normal AM on all HF bands.  The Region 2 plan does not, only in two 25 kHz segments on 80/75 and one segment on 10 meters.  This is a big difference.

Yes, I will agree that AM is allowed from 1840 KHz to 29.7 MHz wherever "All Modes" is specified. However, only from 29.2 MHz to 29.7 MHz is 6 KHz bandwidth specified as maximum for "All Modes". So, to assume that you can operate 6 KHz bandwidth with the AM mode in the "All Modes" section of each band below 29.2 MHz, may not be the correct assumption.   

I personally don't know of a large contingent of AM operators operating out of Region 1 in the past, so AM may not be a big issue with them.

Quote
If this is not the case, then what is the purpose of the note (rule) in the Region 1 plan meaning 2.7 kHz AM is to yield way to 2.7 kHz SSB?  Are you insisting this the correct meaning?

In order for it to make sense, they need to identify what is the maximum bandwidth for AM below 29.2 MHz or the statement only applies to "All Mode" activities between 29.2 - 29.7 MHz where the maximum bandwidth of 6 KHz is specified.
Note: back in Reply 476 Sumner said in a response to a W1UX e-mail:
"For analog modes, necessary bandwidth is defined as 2700 Hz for voice SSB and 6000 Hz for voice DSB. That's an ITU Recommendation and did not originate with the ARRL." Unfortunately, both the Region 1 and Region 2 band plans in their frequency/band charts, only identify maximum bandwidth allowed.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on December 02, 2007, 07:51:40 AM
Couple of points, Pete.   Nobody has "prohibited" contesting on 17 and 12 meters.  It's just that contest sponsors consciously avoid those bands.  If I were to start a "Worked All 50C5s" contest for 17 and 12, there's no rules violation.  So I don't know who "they" are.

Also, the ITU bandwidth recommendations deal generally with non-amateur emissions.  I note that they also include an 8 KHz bandwidth recommendation for broadcast.  And the way they "calculate" bandwidth merely takes into account the modulating frequency.  It is a flawed method of "measuring" transmitted bandwidth, but one that is apparently simple to understand.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 02, 2007, 02:00:58 PM
Couple of points, Pete.   Nobody has "prohibited" contesting on 17 and 12 meters.  It's just that contest sponsors consciously avoid those bands.  If I were to start a "Worked All 50C5s" contest for 17 and 12, there's no rules violation.  So I don't know who "they" are.
"they" - contest sponsers >> ARRL, CQ, IARU, etc.
I should have been more clear.
But, as it relates to the thread, my point of 17M and 12M being a non-issue remains unchanged.

Quote
Also, the ITU bandwidth recommendations deal generally with non-amateur emissions.  I note that they also include an 8 KHz bandwidth recommendation for broadcast.  And the way they "calculate" bandwidth merely takes into account the modulating frequency.  It is a flawed method of "measuring" transmitted bandwidth, but one that is apparently simple to understand.

Simple works for me.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 02, 2007, 02:16:20 PM
The ITU bandwidth recommendation is based on this premise:
The non-ham users wind up with assigned channels at 3 kHz channel spacing also.

(3 kHz spacings in the phone bands - A system we may need to consider adopting since we have the problems with the appliance operators who don't understand the bandwidths of AM transmissions and the AM mode receivers, and also those who think that 3884.0 is a different channel (cammawn) than 3885.0)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on December 04, 2007, 01:26:20 PM
ITU chief meets with non-U.S. delegates of IARU Region 2
Details not disclosed.
Notice, as did Lee, W6EM,
Quote
The fact that David Sumner is no longer Secretary is of interest.  Change is good.....
(via QRZ.com)
IARU Region 2 RSS News Service

Ramon Santoyo XE1KK Secretary of IARU Region 2 (the Americas) has announced that an RSS news service is now available.

The service is available in Spanish as well as English and you can subscribe to them from the “Links” section of the IARU Region 2 website.


http://www.iaru-r2.org/hb9eht-in-guatemala/ (http://www.iaru-r2.org/hb9eht-in-guatemala/)

http://www.iaru-r2.org/iaru-r2-in-fracap-2007/ (http://www.iaru-r2.org/iaru-r2-in-fracap-2007/)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 04, 2007, 01:49:58 PM
"The fact that David Sumner is no longer Secretary is of interest."

Gee, what are the odds that this will get mentioned in the next ARRL Newsletter?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 04, 2007, 01:51:14 PM
ITU chief meets with non-U.S. delegates of IARU Region 2
Details not disclosed.
Notice, as did Lee, W6EM,
Quote
The fact that David Sumner is no longer Secretary is of interest.  Change is good.....
(via QRZ.com)


Dave Sumner is Secretary of the IARU.

From the IARU Region 2 final meeting minutes in September 2007:
"The Conference's last order of business was the election of officers and other Executive Committee members for the next three years. Rod Stafford, W6ROD, declined to stand for re-election as President but will remain a Director. Moving to the office of President is Secretary Reinaldo Leandro, YV5AMH, of Venezuela. Dario Jurado, HP1DJ, of Panama was re-elected Vice President, and Donawa was re-elected Treasurer and Director. Santoyo was newly elected as Secretary and joins the Executive Committee for the first time."

Note: The B/C committee (where the revised band plan was developed) was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico City, Mexico.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 04, 2007, 01:59:52 PM
Paul,

Can you straighten out this "news reporting"? Are we getting remarks based on some people thinking Dave Sumner WAS Region 2 Secretary?  Is he out or not as the International Secretary?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 04, 2007, 02:01:43 PM
Rinaldo served as Secretary during the Region 2 band plan deliberations, that's why it was wrong for the midwest Director Jim Weaver to assert there was no role in the matter by the ARRL. He has not answered my request for a corrective email to his constituents by the way. Maybe someone in his division can appeal to his ethics.

Stafford's departure may have been a good thing too.
They've apparently been cooking up a bandwidth-based band plan ever since Rinaldo failed domestically in his one-man mission to push it through the FCC, or at least dating back to when the writing on the wall became clear most people opposed his scheme.

This means, during all that time1, there has been NO public or visible effort to elicit input from U.S. licensees.
From   --w6rod@comcast.net
to   Paul Courson
date   Oct 7, 2007 10:46 AM
subject   Re: IARU Region 2 Band Plan
mailed-by   comcast.net
   
Paul
 
The Region 2 HF Committee has been studying the HF band plans for the last two years to see if any changes should be made.  The R2HFC was made up of amateurs from Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, and some of the islands in the Carribean.
 
Their report was presented to the working group at the Region 2 Conference.  The working group at the conference (all societies attending the conference) dealing with HF matters made a number of changes in the band plans including trying to harmonize it as much as possible with the band plans from the other two regions.
 
That working group then presented the band plan to the plenary session at the conference and it was adopted.
 
Rod W6ROD

1It was not an ad lib or impromptu suggestion to use enumerated bandwidths, but rather a prepared position, with forethought, possibly in line with Harrison's assertion the Board of Directors would have developed such policy ahead of the Brazil conference.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 04, 2007, 02:06:36 PM
So much for quotes from QRZ.com.  I guess I will get my news from AM Forum!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 04, 2007, 02:08:18 PM
Your confusion is understandable, Tom,
it's like a floating crap game, where you never know who's dealing.

If you look at the IARU site you will see a rundown of executives.
The titles may or may not match who actually is doing the dealing.

Furthermore, each Region is a separate company, think of them as subsidiaries to the main IARU. This is why Larry Price could deny having any role in the Region 2 plan, since the mothership that he is in charge of did not have a say in where the little boat (Region 2, the S.S. Rinaldo) went.

(Now envision Skipper, hitting Gilligan with the hat, if he gets out of line.)




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 04, 2007, 02:11:48 PM
Grab the tail............ ;D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 04, 2007, 02:15:49 PM
Paul,

Can you straighten out this "news reporting"? Are we getting remarks based on some people thinking Dave Sumner WAS Region 2 Secretary?  Is he out or not as the International Secretary?

Actually back in Reply 5, October 6, 2007, you said:
"The last time I researched the IARU Region 2 staff, which was a couple of years ago, I came up with some fellow by the name of Dave Sumner as it's secretary.  Ever hear of him?"


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 04, 2007, 04:43:50 PM
So much for off-the-top-of-the-head comments.  22 posts later I posted the actual IARU Region 2 list. 

If you say Dave Sumner is on any committee you want to name, you won't be 100 % right and you won't be 100 % wrong on average.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 04, 2007, 05:05:11 PM
Quote
Rinaldo served as Secretary during the Region 2 band plan deliberations, that's why it was wrong for the midwest Director Jim Weaver to assert there was no role in the matter by the ARRL. He has not answered my request for a corrective email to his constituents by the way.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: K8JE
Date: Dec 4, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: Request received ?
To: Paul Courson

I am issuing a clarification.

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division

E-mail: 
ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!

Members - The Reason ARRL Is!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 04, 2007, 05:41:31 PM
So much for off-the-top-of-the-head comments.  22 posts later I posted the actual IARU Region 2 list. 

If you say Dave Sumner is on any committee you want to name, you won't be 100 % right and you won't be 100 % wrong on average.

But, in the era of fast finger typing, it's much better to be 100% right, if you do your homework.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 04, 2007, 05:51:46 PM
Quote
Rinaldo served as Secretary during the Region 2 band plan deliberations, that's why it was wrong for the midwest Director Jim Weaver to assert there was no role in the matter by the ARRL. He has not answered my request for a corrective email to his constituents by the way.



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: K8JE
Date: Dec 4, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: Request received ?
To: Paul Courson

I am issuing a clarification.

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division

E-mail: 
ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!

Members - The Reason ARRL Is!


Excellent response from Jim; you probably made a new friend and even you can include yourself in the second line.

In the real sense, Rinaldo was only the scribe/secretary for the IARU Region 2 B/C Committee. Every IARU Region 2 committee member wears another hat beyond the IARU. When presented to the entire group, the ARRL had only one vote. I guess the rest of the members saw no problem with it.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on December 04, 2007, 08:20:25 PM

Jim, K8JE wrote:
>>I am issuing a clarification.

Pete, WA2CWA wrote:

>Excellent response from Jim;

Pete, are you kidding?  That one short sentence hardly any response at all.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K4QE on December 04, 2007, 09:28:46 PM
Since there appears to be some confusion, here's the info right from the proverbial horse's mouth.

According to the www.iaru.org website, Dave Sumner is the current Secretary of the IARU, not IARU Region 2.

BTW, take a look at the footer of the web page.  Mr. Sumner is the maintainer of the page, and he last edited it on Oct. 22nd.

Oh, and Larry Price is the current President...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: K4QE on December 04, 2007, 09:36:02 PM
Check out who the IARU's current International Secretariat is:

http://www.iaru.org/iaruis.html

You can check out the IS's responsibilities here:

http://www.iaru.org/iarucnst.html#A5

So, it looks like the ARRL is footing the bill for the IARU's operating expenses, too.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 05, 2007, 02:33:28 AM
BTW, take a look at the footer of the web page.  Mr. Sumner is the maintainer of the page, and he last edited it on Oct. 22nd.

Oh, and Larry Price is the current President...

The new Region 2 Secretary came on board at the September 2007 meeting. Dave also spent time at the ITU meeting in Geneva from October 22 to November 16th. It's great to be in management.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 05, 2007, 02:48:51 AM

Jim, K8JE wrote:
>>I am issuing a clarification.

Pete, WA2CWA wrote:

>Excellent response from Jim;

Pete, are you kidding?  That one short sentence hardly any response at all.

Steve WD8DAS

Seems perfectly clear to me. Maybe you should wait till he writes the "clarification" and posts it on his Division's web site or by e-mail to his constituents since they should be his first priority to receive notification.

I'm sure the amateur radio world is anxious to hear this "clarification". ;D


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W1RC on December 06, 2007, 07:54:31 AM
Check out who the IARU's current International Secretariat is:

So, it looks like the ARRL is footing the bill for the IARU's operating expenses, too.
The IARU has been a "golden handshake" for many years for plenty of the higher League officials including some former Presidents like W4RA.  It's no surprise to me that Sumner is among them.  In case you didn't know the ARRL has tried for decades to "suggest" to other countries how to run their amateur radio affairs.  Anyone remember the CRRL?

I wonder if they draw salaries and if so how much?

What nonsense!

73,

Michael, W1RC


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 07, 2007, 05:01:46 AM
Well,.. one things for sure, when all your worried about is top hats and titles, it doesn't leave much clarity for the rank and file to work with.

Clarification..? .. a position of authority's damage control.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2
Post by: WA3VJB on December 07, 2007, 05:45:43 AM
I haven't received any "clarification," so he must be taking an awful great deal of care in writing it.

Also, watch for the words "we are committed," a phrase which has come to mean "we don't give a szht."


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 07, 2007, 01:31:25 PM
ARRL President, W5ZN, has posted a statement on the revised IARU Region 2 band plan on the ARRL web site dated 12/7/07.

To review the complete text, go here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/12/07/100/?nc=1 (http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/12/07/100/?nc=1)
or here:
http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php/topic,12868.0.html (http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php/topic,12868.0.html)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: w3jn on December 07, 2007, 02:00:50 PM
Quote
Unlike the US, where the FCC's Part 97 rules regulate the frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service by emission designator, many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation. Because of this, the national Amateur Radio societies in these countries look to a band plan to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences. In such cases, these countries are urged to promote incorporation or recognition of a band plan into their regulations.

So, thanks to this bandplan, there are now a number of countries that cannot run DSB full carrier AM.

Quote
In the United States, however, ARRL's band plans will continue to provide guidance for recommended operating preferences including the 160 meter band plan that was revised in 2001 on the basis of membership input.

If the ARRL sought input on the 160 band plan, why did it not seek input on a IARU-2 plan?  The ARRL is the US representative to the IARU - why would it not consider the wishes of its members?  It should have been patently obvious to the ARRL, based upon the opposition to its redacted petition, that there was a large amount of opposition to such bandplan via bandwidth schemes.

Quote
The band plans provide voluntary guidelines and recommendations for good operating practice that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations.
So anyone violating the banplan does not engage in "good operating practice"?  How does the virtual elimination of full carrier DSB improve operating practice?  Am I a bad operator if I ignore this bandplan?

Quote
The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.

HUH?!?!  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Common roots but unrelated???  C'mon!

Quote
While a number of Amateur Radio organizations and publishers support and agree with the ARRL on the concept of regulation by bandwidth as an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands, ARRL will not be pursuing a rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community.

So this issue is not dead, despite all of the opposition to same.  THe "common roots" cited above as well as the statement that many look towards bandplans for eventual regulation leads one to believe that despite the denial, this is part and parcel to another eventual peteition for regulation by bandwidth.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it ain't a '53 Studebaker.

Quote
ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.

Except in this case.  And by the way, go to hell if you're not a member.

Quote
ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.

Nice caveat here.  "We won't listen to you unless you subscribe to our szhhty magazine".



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 07, 2007, 02:36:51 PM

 this is part and parcel to another eventual peteition for regulation by bandwidth.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it ain't a '53 Studebaker.


Regardless of what the the League might try in the future, it's my opinion that the days of their having persuasive influence at the FCC are done. Over. Toast. The folks at the Commission are pragmatists and they're NOT dumb, either. And they do read the internet. There was and is NO compelling reason or demonstrable benefit to regulation by bandwidth.

IF Newington wants to play leadership role in ham radio, they need to change their ways, open up, and work to achieve consensus. 1959 politics, Chicago-style, doesn't cut it any more.

Quote

Nice caveat here.  "We won't listen to you unless you subscribe to our szhhty magazine".


Since I was licensed in 1965, there have been very few times where my correspondence to League officials (on several subjects)  wasn't replied to in a condescending manner. Same for Wayne Green. I get more honest correspondence from my Congressman.

The public forum that is the internet has changed a few things, hasn't it?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 07, 2007, 04:19:55 PM
Quote
Unlike the US, where the FCC's Part 97 rules regulate the frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service by emission designator, many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation. Because of this, the national Amateur Radio societies in these countries look to a band plan to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences. In such cases, these countries are urged to promote incorporation or recognition of a band plan into their regulations.

So, thanks to this bandplan, there are now a number of countries that cannot run DSB full carrier AM.

This is true now even before the new band plan comes into affect. Bermuda max. bandwidth is 2700 Hz and Aruba is 3000 Hz. I believe there are several other countries who also have similar bandwidth numbers.

Quote
Quote
In the United States, however, ARRL's band plans will continue to provide guidance for recommended operating preferences including the 160 meter band plan that was revised in 2001 on the basis of membership input.

If the ARRL sought input on the 160 band plan, why did it not seek input on a IARU-2 plan?  The ARRL is the US representative to the IARU - why would it not consider the wishes of its members?  It should have been patently obvious to the ARRL, based upon the opposition to its redacted petition, that there was a large amount of opposition to such bandplan via bandwidth schemes.

Our FCC rules and regulations preempt any voluntary band plans whether they're domestic or international.

Quote
Quote
The band plans provide voluntary guidelines and recommendations for good operating practice that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations.
So anyone violating the banplan does not engage in "good operating practice"?  How does the virtual elimination of full carrier DSB improve operating practice?  Am I a bad operator if I ignore this bandplan?

If you visit a country and want to play radio, and their only radio regulation is the IARU Region 2 band plan, then, yes, you are not engaging in "good operating practice" or worse (depending on the country).

Quote
Quote
The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.

HUH?!?!  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Common roots but unrelated???  C'mon!

common root ~ bandwidth ~ world-wide interest

Quote
Quote
While a number of Amateur Radio organizations and publishers support and agree with the ARRL on the concept of regulation by bandwidth as an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands, ARRL will not be pursuing a rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community.

So this issue is not dead, despite all of the opposition to same.  THe "common roots" cited above as well as the statement that many look towards bandplans for eventual regulation leads one to believe that despite the denial, this is part and parcel to another eventual peteition for regulation by bandwidth.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it ain't a '53 Studebaker.

When ARRL pulled RM-11306, they said something to the effect that they reserved the right to revisit the issue of regulation by bandwidth in the future. No surprise here; the concept has merit; the initial presentation was flawed.


Quote
Quote
ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.

Except in this case.  And by the way, go to hell if you're not a member.

Membership has its value.

Quote
Quote
ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.

Nice caveat here.  "We won't listen to you unless you subscribe to our szhhty magazine".

There is no magazine subscription but they do have a monthly journal as part of membership.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 07, 2007, 04:37:55 PM
Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 07, 2007, 05:39:13 PM
Because the ARRL says so!


Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 07, 2007, 05:59:17 PM

The ARRL sez:
Quote
One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive. As voluntary guidelines, the band plan cannot by definition be "more severe" than regulations; however, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations, it would serve no purpose.

I propose the bandwidth limitations be removed from this “flexible” band plan. While we’re at it, since it is so flexible, and completely voluntary, I recommend that all amateurs in Region 2 ignore it.

The ARRL sez:
Quote
As one of the 39 Member-Societies of IARU Region 2, the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions.

Excellent! This will give them more time to come up with arrogant and condescending replies.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 07, 2007, 06:54:28 PM
I really used to look forward to my sending in my dues every year..a little chore that i liked to do...liked the web page for articles that were available to read...monthly rag..Ok i guess..sompin to read on the throne...

Now my Dues come here...at least when sompin is wrong it's wrong...when sompin is right it's right...no collusion at all...everything discussed and all points brought out...

I just don't get it with these people...what part of No don't they understand...it's beyond my very unworthy thought patterns...lol....



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 07, 2007, 11:49:01 PM
Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?
I don't feel that ambitious to go back and highlight all the pluses that regulation by bandwidth can bring for the future of amateur radio. The ARRL's petition, http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf (http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf) in the "Introduction and Background" section highlights many of them. If you feel real ambitious you can review my comments on the FCC comment page for RM-11306. CQ also had some great ideas regarding this subject in their comments to the FCC on the proposal.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 08, 2007, 03:44:43 AM
What practical use are subbands other than keeping slopbuckets from swamping the part of the bands used by cw and other similarly narrow band modes?  160 has no subbands at all and everyone seems to get by just fine.

The way I would propose regulation by bandwidth would be to divide the bands into two sections, one restricted to modes with necessary bandwidths narrower than 300~ while the other would allow modes with necessary bandwidths wider than 300~.  One division period.  Nothing more.  No other specified bandwidth limits for any mode.  On 80m, 3500-3600 would be limited to 300~ bandwidth.  On 40, 7000-7050.  On 20, 14000-14100, etc. etc.  Maybe a general statement that no signal should exceed the necessary bandwidth of double sideband AM phone, just to keep someone from occupying the entire  band for one fast scan TV or some kind of spread spectrum digital.

If I read the regulation right, the UK has now purged from its rules all limitations by mode or by bandwidth.  They simply say run anything you want on any frequency but keep the signal within the limits of the amateur  band, and let the amateurs work it out from there.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 08, 2007, 04:44:53 AM
Now see that Don I like that, "and let the amateurs work it out" see the trust building there. That's what these cats are missing, Have Faith in us not role playing..Believe me you will be told when there's a problem.


This has got me to thinken and has put an idea in the back of my head, it's like what you don't trust the VE program either so now you need to do the thinking for us too, Yup OK Uncle jack wasn't born yesterday Not a problem...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on December 08, 2007, 07:12:32 AM

This is true now even before the new band plan comes into affect. Bermuda max. bandwidth is 2700 Hz and Aruba is 3000 Hz. I believe there are several other countries who also have similar bandwidth numbers.

Now, thanks to this ill-advised fiasco, there will be more.  Please explain to me, Pete, without sidestepping the question, how this advances amateur radio.  If you cannot explain this, then you must have to agree that the whole concept is faulty and should be discarded.



Quote
Our FCC rules and regulations preempt any voluntary band plans whether they're domestic or international.

You keep dredging out this statement as if it is some defense of the plan.  Please explain to me how this bandplan in general and the bandwidtch restrictions in particular are beneficial to US amateurs (let's set aside for a moment the fact that some countries will virtually ban DSB AM as a result of this).


Quote
If you visit a country and want to play radio, and their only radio regulation is the IARU Region 2 band plan, then, yes, you are not engaging in "good operating practice" or worse (depending on the country).

The "good amateur practice" does not distinquish between local regs or not; just THIS bandplan.  Please explain to me how just the practice of using DSB full carrier AM constitutes poor amateur practice when it is not interfering with anyone.



Quote
common root ~ bandwidth ~ world-wide interest

THe "origin" cannot be from "bandwidth" - someone had to have had that idea.  A nebulous entity called "bandwidth" doesn't think for itself nor does it draft IARU bandplans.  *SOMEONE* did it and I believe that's what the "common roots" are referring to.





Quote
When ARRL pulled RM-11306, they said something to the effect that they reserved the right to revisit the issue of regulation by bandwidth in the future. No surprise here; the concept has merit; the initial presentation was flawed.
As was this, which many rightly view as an attempt at an end-run around the FCC towards a treaty which will codify this at the next WRC.


Quote
Membership has its value.

If they proclaim to represent US amateurs and their interests then they should do so, membership aside.  Their website still invites comment to Division Directors on matters of interest and does not disntinguish between members and non-members.  N3LLR graciously replied to me (once) but was pretty bold in stating that he was under no obligation to do so.  I was also provided copies of other correspondence from League personnel who were very denigrating towards me for having the termerity to provide my opinion (which was very respectful).  I requested of N3LLR that, if it were the case that Division Directors need not correspond with non-members that this be clarified on the ARRL website.  It has not been.

I have never been strongly anti_ARRL.  What changed me somehwat were the appalling shennanigans perpetrated by HQ against a candidate for the Atlantic Division.  ANd the nastiness against me and fellow AMers who are bold enough to publically question this (and other) nonsense is appalling and uncalled-for.

Pleae explain to me, Pete, why I should support an organization who embarks upon crusades like this while failing to learn a thing from its recent failed petition?  Why should I *pay* someone to bend me over a barrel???



Quote
There is no magazine subscription but they do have a monthly journal as part of membership.
Grrrrr.....


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 08, 2007, 10:25:56 AM
Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?
I don't feel that ambitious to go back and highlight all the pluses that regulation by bandwidth can bring for the future of amateur radio. The ARRL's petition, http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf (http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf) in the "Introduction and Background" section highlights many of them. If you feel real ambitious you can review my comments on the FCC comment page for RM-11306. CQ also had some great ideas regarding this subject in their comments to the FCC on the proposal.

Pete, the petition is by and large illogical, IMO.

Here's a copy-n-paste statement from it:

" We are in the early stages of a dramatic shift in Amateur operating patterns, especially in the High Frequency (HF) bands. It is impossible to determine now where this shift may lead. "

A *dramatic* shift, that can't be quantified or documented? Because we're only in its early stages?

Sounds heavy, man. Heavy.

Not a single corroborating document to support that assertion. No letters from a WB8FZZ stating, "I want to use V.301 digital mode but I can't because of FCC regulations..". Or (more likely) a letter from Kenwood stating they have developed a new digital gizmo that they want to sell but it can't be used because of QRM from analog stations or because of repressive regulations.

OTOH, the one quantifiable shift in operating that's obvious is the growth in the use of AM.
LOL.

How would League officials and the others know what's going on, anyway? They never seem to get on the air, anyway. I can talk to Rush or Dr. Laura on the air, but we can't engage Rinaldo in a public or private discussion about it?



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 08, 2007, 11:20:51 AM
Now see that Don I like that, "and let the amateurs work it out" see the trust building there. That's what these cats are missing, Have Faith in us not role playing..Believe me you will be told when there's a problem.


This has got me to thinken and has put an idea in the back of my head, it's like what you don't trust the VE program either so now you need to do the thinking for us too, Yup OK Uncle jack wasn't born yesterday Not a problem...

I can't figure what you are getting at.  Translate please.

If I interpreted what I read correctly, that is simply a fact.  Modes of emission and bandwidth in the UK were completely deregulated, so whether they like it or not, they are forced to operate strictly by voluntary band plan.

It works somewhat like that here too, on 160.  But I'm afraid that slopbuckets would over-run the CW operators if 80 were completely deregulated.  If the FCC, in its infinite wisdom decides we need to be regulated by bandwidth, one simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth would be sufficient.  The last thing we  need is subbands and sub-sub bands with 200~, 500~, 1500~, 2700~, 3500~, 6000~ and 9000~ segments spelt out in Part 97.

Not that long ago, I was warm to the idea of completely eliminating subbands altogether as they have already done in Canada, and relying strictly on a voluntary band plan, enforced by the limitations of "good amateur practice". But the recent IARU fiasco has made me think twice about the whole idea.  Who would decide what band plan structure has been "volunteered"? I fear that the IARU fiasco a sample of what would happen. We might end up saddled with a "band plan" that is far worse, particularly for AM, than anything the FCC has ever attempted to come out with.

Still, even after the phone band expansion, our US subband structure, based on a matrix of modes of emission and licence class, is far too complex.

One simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth, is about the only regulation-by-bandwidth scheme I could feel like living with.  That is not to say that I would even advocate that plan.

And what do volunteer examinations have to do with it?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 08, 2007, 11:49:22 AM
Now see that Don I like that, "and let the amateurs work it out" see the trust building there. That's what these cats are missing, Have Faith in us not role playing..Believe me you will be told when there's a problem.


This has got me to thinken and has put an idea in the back of my head, it's like what you don't trust the VE program either so now you need to do the thinking for us too, Yup OK Uncle jack wasn't born yesterday Not a problem...

I can't figure what you are getting at.  Translate please.

If I interpreted what I read correctly, that is simply a fact.  Modes of emission and bandwidth in the UK were completely deregulated, so whether they like it or not, they are forced to operate strictly by voluntary band plan.

It works somewhat like that here too, on 160.  But I'm afraid that slopbuckets would over-run the CW operators if 80 were completely deregulated.  If the FCC, in its infinite wisdom decides we need to be regulated by bandwidth, one simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth would be sufficient.  The last thing we  need is subbands and sub-sub bands with 200~, 500~, 1500~, 2700~, 3500~, 6000~ and 9000~ segments spelt out in Part 97.

Not that long ago, I was warm to the idea of completely eliminating subbands altogether as they have already done in Canada, and relying strictly on a voluntary band plan, enforced by the limitations of "good amateur practice". But the recent IARU fiasco has made me think twice about the whole idea.  Who would decide what band plan structure has been "volunteered"? I fear that the IARU fiasco a sample of what would happen. We might end up saddled with a "band plan" that is far worse, particularly for AM, than anything the FCC has ever attempted to come out with.

Still, even after the phone band expansion, our US subband structure, based on a matrix of modes of emission and licence class, is far too complex.

One simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth, is about the only regulation-by-bandwidth scheme I could feel like living with.  That is not to say that I would even advocate that plan.

And what do volunteer examinations have to do with it?

Hi Don,


 I was writing and thinking out loud i shouldn't do that i do apologize...I like the idea of Amateurs Policing their own, I think there should be no Bandwidth limitation suggestion at all, each mode to it's own structure in good Amateur practice, but by watching these constant maneuverings of these guys it makes me think they have no faith in the system we have and that would include the testing that's supposed to educate the new ham, now, sure you test you pass, but we'll detail operations and rules you obey...i don't like this...it displays No Trust. to many parallels going on here.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: AF9J on December 08, 2007, 12:48:11 PM

One simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth, is about the only regulation-by-bandwidth scheme I could feel like living with.  That is not to say that I would even advocate that plan.


Man, I don't know about that Don,

If you go to that method, you're opening up a potential QRM can of worms due to the mixing digital modes that would be wider than typical CW bandwidths, but incompatible of mixing with SSB and AM modes.  You don't want to go there.   Modes like PACTOR III (and its infamous Winlink derivative) would be allowed useage up around say 3710, 7290 , etc.  Considering the QRM issues other operators are having with these modes in the automated digital operation subbands, you don't want to spread them.  And all of the strap in the world won't stop them from transmitting.  Half of the time the operators of some of these modes could care less if you e-mail them to cool it.  Some hams have been greeted with nothing but hostility, in their requests to have some of these wideband digital mode users, be a bit more careful of where they transmit.  I dealt with wideband digital mode QRM first hand.  3 weeks in a row, of having a Hellschreiber net I ran QRMed by PACTOR II or III signals, chased us off of a net freq., we'd been on for months.  Operators of these wideband modes, claim to not hear constant carrier, constant amplitude modes like CW, Packet, RTTY, and PSK31.  Wanna bet they'll have an even harder time hearing variable amplitude modes like AM & SSB? 

73 & just my 2 cents worth,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on December 08, 2007, 06:15:06 PM

7-I can't help but be impressed by Pete being the near sole defender of the ARRL & IARU in this matter. I don't agree with him BUT I can't help but admire his courage in standing fast in the face of such an assault/barrage.




Indeed!  All discussion was kept civil. 


Good points, Mack, it's obvious that the ARRL isn't going to back down.  However the more people that are aware of this the better.  To quote Emil Faber, the illustrious founder of Faber College: "Knowledge is Good".


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 08, 2007, 06:36:25 PM
Yep, a dude named after a pencil.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 10, 2007, 05:36:31 AM
KI4SXC in Florida posted the following on another IARU Region 2 discussion thread. Stafford held a ranking IARU position at the time of the Brazil talks. It will have been four months after those talks concluded that we get the "minutes," presumably being carefully written in that time frame.

The minutes of the Region 2 Conference should be available on the Region 2
web site within the next 30 days or so.  www.iaru-r2.org is the URL.

Rod Stafford W6ROD


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: K1DEU on December 11, 2007, 12:31:15 AM
     Well at least they know many of us are strongly considering not re-newing our forced subscription (to their "for the newbies" QST). Would we ever be allowed to choose QEX instead? sadly likely never...
     

     They are still in the dark, not feeling our spirit about their pompous and dogmatic "from the top down___End of wide bandwidths___ on LF  and  HF___. And their Slow; but sure intent with their "trade Amateur Emergency (in-) Security Communications with Congress___to save and obtain more Wacko small segments like 5 and 10 Megacycles in panic and CW weak signal and digital Jamming QSO's for a few Executive big-shots' personal Fun!

      I wonder if they could internally try a little supposed American "Republic" form of government ???  Reference   Aristotle, George Washington, Thomas Payne, Ben Franklin and " American President Martin Van Buren "  who nearly saved us from where we are now !  73 on CW,  John, K1DEU  PS      pardon my Humble Opinion !!!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 11, 2007, 04:39:15 AM
 Some of the Great Libertarians Knew,...."Knew" what would happen given present day activities, reason why Jefferson said ...they only way it's gona work is if there's a revolution once in awhile...sometimes i wonder about that.

 I fully understand standardization, i understand it's need..the members in the BC industry here Know and understand the need. everybody is on the same page here on this board..we respect the need for things...

 But it's the Politics of this matter that is wrong and the choice that was made.

 and for that there is No defense...none.....


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on December 11, 2007, 09:14:15 AM

You know, even if one takes the ARRL protestations of innocence at face value, they still have failed to protect the interests of all current US operators and modes in the IARU Region 2 bandplan revision process.  Their vote in favor of the revisions with tight bandwidth limits, and their subsequent claims that we can ignore the plan (until they've had a chance to educate everyone as to its merits?) does not serve us well at all. 

As a member I'm very disappointed in the ARRL management on this issue.

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 11, 2007, 02:16:29 PM

Now, thanks to this ill-advised fiasco, there will be more.  Please explain to me, Pete, without sidestepping the question, how this advances amateur radio.  If you cannot explain this, then you must have to agree that the whole concept is faulty and should be discarded.

I personally believe that some form of regulation by bandwidth has a future in amateur radio as we move further into the 21th century. Back in the old days, we had CW and AM phone; then along came SSB, then came packet, AMTOR, Winlink, and new digital type modes popping all the time. Although these "new" modes individually may be presently small in number, there seems to be a gradual increase in their popularity. If we (domestic U. S.) don't start planning a way to accommodate all these new modes in the near-term, I fully believe that most HF bands populated with U. S. amateurs will turn into dens of anarchy in the long-term. Many international countries have already started to see the light for amateur radio's future, and have taken the necessary steps.

So, NO, I don't "Agree that the whole concept is faulty and should be discarded". On the contrary, unless U. S. amateurs wake up and "smell the roses", international pressures may force the FCC individually to act in ways most of us would not be in agreement with.

I would also support, that if the ARRL pursues another bandwidth regulation proposal further down the road, that their processes must be far more open then they were in the past. The issue can't be "regulation by bandwidth is "bad"; the issue should be, "how to we make regulation by bandwidth work here in the U. S." as we proceed further into the 21st century.

Quote
You keep dredging out this statement as if it is some defense of the plan.  Please explain to me how this bandplan in general and the bandwidtch restrictions in particular are beneficial to US amateurs (let's set aside for a moment the fact that some countries will virtually ban DSB AM as a result of this).

Unless I'm reading the Aruba's rules incorrectly, they only allow SSB as a phone mode. You also need to remember that the voluntary revised Region 2 band plan didn't only specify bandwidth limits, but it also identified a number Region 2 "emergency centers of activity" frequencies, which in times of regional disasters, are very important.


Quote
The "good amateur practice" does not distinquish between local regs or not; just THIS bandplan.  Please explain to me how just the practice of using DSB full carrier AM constitutes poor amateur practice when it is not interfering with anyone.

As long as you adhere to the rules and regulations of the country, or the Regional band plan, if that's the rules that the country is using, you should be in agreement with their "good amateur practice" policy.


Quote
As was this, which many rightly view as an attempt at an end-run around the FCC towards a treaty which will codify this at the next WRC.

You can believe what you want. There is no evidence to support your assumption.

Quote
If they proclaim to represent US amateurs and their interests then they should do so, membership aside.  Their website still invites comment to Division Directors on matters of interest and does not disntinguish between members and non-members.  N3LLR graciously replied to me (once) but was pretty bold in stating that he was under no obligation to do so.  I was also provided copies of other correspondence from League personnel who were very denigrating towards me for having the termerity to provide my opinion (which was very respectful).  I requested of N3LLR that, if it were the case that Division Directors need not correspond with non-members that this be clarified on the ARRL website.  It has not been.

I have never been strongly anti_ARRL.  What changed me somehwat were the appalling shennanigans perpetrated by HQ against a candidate for the Atlantic Division.  ANd the nastiness against me and fellow AMers who are bold enough to publically question this (and other) nonsense is appalling and uncalled-for.

If you were a member, the next time his position came up for renewal, you could help vote him out. In my opinion, as a non-member, he owes you nothing.

In regards to the proposed candidate in question: Under the ARRL Bylaws and Articles of Association in effect at the time the proposed candidate made his bid to be on the slate, his background and current activities violated those rules. What you wanted was for the ARRL to bend the rules, or ignore the rules, for someone you thought was qualified.

Pleae explain to me, Pete, why I should support an organization who embarks upon crusades like this while failing to learn a thing from its recent failed petition?  Why should I *pay* someone to bend me over a barrel??? [/quote]

In membership numbers there can be strength. You can play an active part in getting a Director/Vice-Director representative on the Board that may share your issues and concerns and take them to the table for discussion or ruling.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 11, 2007, 02:23:49 PM
Their vote in favor of the revisions with tight bandwidth limits, and their subsequent claims that we can ignore the plan (until they've had a chance to educate everyone as to its merits?) does not serve us well at all. 

As a member I'm very disappointed in the ARRL management on this issue.

Steve WD8DAS

It's a voluntary band plan. If you don't see any merit to it, ignore it. It's not part of any FCC rules and regulations. Life goes on.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 11, 2007, 02:55:14 PM
Their vote in favor of the revisions with tight bandwidth limits, and their subsequent claims that we can ignore the plan (until they've had a chance to educate everyone as to its merits?) does not serve us well at all. 

As a member I'm very disappointed in the ARRL management on this issue.

Steve WD8DAS

It's a voluntary band plan. If you don't see any merit to it, ignore it. It's not part of any FCC rules and regulations. Life goes on.

The 3892/3889 crowd could also be informed of the new IARU Region 2 Voluntary Bandplan, voted for by the ARRL, that goes into effect January 1, which designates wideband AM operations at 3875 - 3900 KHz.

One of them talked about it last night.  They are too ignorant to understand what it means.  K9ESE basically told the others that after Jan. 1, anyone with an old AM rig that goes over 6 kcs is going to be illegal, and their rigs will have to be trashed.  Not only do these guys lie to outsiders, they will lie to their own followers to keep the fire burning.

Here is the MP3 if anyone cares to listen to this yahoo:
http://w5ami.net/3.892000MHz_12-10-2007_4_53PMCST.mp3

This is precisely my major concern, notwithstanding the spin which League staff is trying to put on the issue.  Even if ARRL is correct in their assertion (in which case they have certainly done a piss poor job of communicating this to the greater amateur community), there will be many, many amateurs, even well-meaning hams who are not part this or similar groups of retards, who will fail to understand what the IARU bandplan is, and who will INSIST that it is illegal to operate AM outside the suggested "windows" or beyond the stated bandwidths.  In every "non-compliant" QSO we can expect to hear numerous breakers and anonymous SSB comments dropped on top of our carriers, "informing" us that we are operating illegally, in violation of the "new rules".  Or else, we are "poor operators" or "lids" because we are disregarding the band plan. As we continue to legally operate our preferred modes on frequencies of our choice, there will inevitably be a certain element who will become extremely pissed off, and substantial momentum will begin gathering to petition the FCC to adopt the IARU restrictions into Part 97.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 11, 2007, 03:33:19 PM
It's voluntary until it's not. The ARRL has made it clear the intend to make it "not" in the future. I have yet to see a good reason put forth for "regulation by bandwidth." Sorry, the second grade excuse, "cuz other countries are doing it" doesn't cut it. If this is really such an important issue, a reasonable premise should be presented.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 11, 2007, 05:04:16 PM
Think of your membership in the ARRL, not as a magazine subscription, but as a membership in the Surprise-of-the-Month Club.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on December 11, 2007, 05:58:14 PM
Steve said:
Quote
Sorry, the second grade excuse, "cuz other countries are doing it" doesn't cut it.

I was saying precisely that a few pages back! They still haven't made any logic answer as to why they even proposed it in the first place.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 11, 2007, 06:20:21 PM
Well Naturally Life goes on, that's exactly what is wanted, out of sight out of mind...

I liked the surprise of the month Club,,LOLOL...that cracks me up...LOLOL...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W2INR on December 11, 2007, 08:49:16 PM
I don't know how many of you caught this but I found it interesting to say the least.

Bill KA8WTK found this and brought this to my attention.

The link below is an MP3 recording of a segment of the Newsline Newscast on the ARRLs response to the CQ editorial on the IARU band plan fiasco. I find two points very interesting. 1. They mentioned AM!!  Good job guys and they said they were going to get a consensus from the Amateur radio community ( they did not say membership). I wonder how they are going to do that and I think we need hold them to this. No mis information here. ;)

           (Warning recording is a little hot on the audio)

Take a listen:http://amfone.net/audio/newsline.mp3 (http://amfone.net/audio/newsline.mp3)

I did not record the entire broadcast .I only recorded the ARRL section . If you wish to here the other items they reported on you can here them
here:http://www.arnewsline.org/ (http://www.arnewsline.org/)

All credits and recordings are from ARNewslineTM and Amateur Radio NewslineTM


G


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 11, 2007, 09:12:03 PM
As we continue to legally operate our preferred modes on frequencies of our choice, there will inevitably be a certain element who will become extremely pissed off, and substantial momentum will begin gathering to petition the FCC to adopt the IARU restrictions into Part 97.


Don, consider the ignorant source(s).
The guys at the FCC aren't stupid.

PS: WA3VJB did a great job in his summary published in the December issue of ER.

PPS: We just took an informal survey, there are at least 122 hams employed as managers, VPs, engineers and  IT personnel at my broadcasting employer. If it wasn't for amateur AM and other experimentation, the broadcast industry and this country would be hurting for trained individuals. This proves that the intent and purpose of the amateur service hasn't gone away, even in 2007, in spite of the League's attempts to turn us all into 2.7 KHz wide ricebox operators. (Err, I mean they were merely duplicating the Region 1 bandplan...)

I'm proud of all of you.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 11, 2007, 09:18:06 PM
I don't know how many of you caught this but I found it interesting to say the least.

Bill KA8WTK found this and brought this to my attention.

The link below is an MP3 recording of a segment of the Newsline Newscast on the ARRLs response to the CQ editorial on the IARU band plan fiasco. I find two points very interesting. 1. They mentioned AM!!  Good job guys and they said they were going to get a consensus from the Amateur radio community ( they did not say membership). I wonder how they are going to do that and I think we need hold them to this. No mis information here. ;)
 
G

If you don't want to listen to the recording, the entire ARnewsline text for December 7, 2007 is at this URL. Two "Page Down" clicks should get you to the topic:
HAM RADIO POLITICS:  THE ARRL RESPONDS TO CQ EDITORIAL REGARDING REGION 2 BANDPLAN
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=176940 (http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST&f=3&t=176940)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 11, 2007, 09:43:38 PM
Pure blather.

Quote
Misleading and Incorrect Rumors Surround IARU Region 2 Band Plan

Misleading and incorrect rumors are surrounding the recently revised band plan of IARU Region 2, adopted at its triennial conference in Brazil in September. The following statement was authorized by ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZN.
During the conference, held September 10-14 in Brasilia, representatives from IARU Region 2 societies met in committees prior to a final plenary session and adopted recommendations concerning a number of items important to Amateur Radio in the region. These included plans to improve emergency communication, enhance education and reduce interference to national emergency nets, as well as revising the Region 2 HF band plan.

The revised Region 2 band plan for 160-10 meters takes effect January 1, 2008. The band plan is based on the band plan adopted by IARU Region 1 at its conference in Davos, Switzerland in September 2005.
IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU Member-Societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines and recommendations for good operating practice that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory authority.

No matter how many times the above is said, it does not answer the question, if the band plan is so very insignificant, why then all the effort to create one and why all the effort by the ARRL to defend it?


Quote
Unlike the US, where the FCC's Part 97 rules regulate the frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service by emission designator, many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation. Because of this, the national Amateur Radio societies in these countries look to a band plan to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences. In such cases, these countries are urged to promote incorporation or recognition of a band plan into their regulations. In the United States, however, ARRL's band plans will continue to provide guidance for recommended operating preferences including the 160 meter band plan that was revised in 2001 on the basis of membership input.

Please explain the need for the bandwidth limitations found in the IARU band plan in order "to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences." I see none. And, since you chose to reference the ARRL 160 Meter band plan, I see no bandwidth restrictions there too. You appear to contradict yourself!


Quote
One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

I propose the bandwidth limitations be removed from this “flexible” band plan. While we’re at it, since it is so flexible, and completely voluntary, I recommend that all amateurs in Region 2 ignore it.

It is no secret that the ARRL wishes to do just this - write bandwidth limitations into the regulations, per RM-11306. Are you now claiming the ARRL's efforts were counterproductive? Once again, you contradict yourself.


Quote
As voluntary guidelines, the band plan cannot by definition be "more severe" than regulations; however, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations, it would serve no purpose.

This band plan does just that (does not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations). So by your own analysis and conclusion, this band plan serves no purpose. Which brings me back to my previous question: why then all the effort to create one and why all the effort by the ARRL to defend it?


Quote
There is also a mistaken assumption that the new IARU Region 2 band plan is an ARRL initiative seeking regulation by bandwidth. It is not, nor is it in any way a vehicle to achieve regulation by bandwidth.

It happens that the ARRL's "regulation by bandwidth" petition, the now-withdrawn RM-11306, also drew on the Region 1 band plan. This is acknowledged on page 10 of the petition. The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.


Yes, it just happens. Surely you could come up with something better than this. What are these common roots? And how are they not tied to the ARRL and RM11306? It is statements like these that lead to rumors. You've created more questions than you've answered.


Quote
While a number of Amateur Radio organizations and publishers support and agree with the ARRL on the concept of regulation by bandwidth as an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands, ARRL will not be pursuing a rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community.

Of course you fail to point out that many disagree with the concept of regulation by bandwidth, to include the FCC. Such an unbalanced presentation only serves to further weaken your case that the issue will be properly handled by the ARRL in the future.
The ARRL has produced no legitimate argument for regulation by bandwidth. Gratuitous assertions that "regulation by bandwidth as (is) an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands" and are just as easily gratuitously denied.


Quote
ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.


And this is why the IARU minutes have not yet been published.

We can argue endlessly as to whether what you call rumors were incorrect or misleading in this case. But such rumors would never have come into existence or gained the footholds they did if the process was as open as you claim. The ARRL needs to give serious consideration to hiring some communication strategy and marketing consultants. This most recent IARU episode is but one in a string of poor communications incidents at the ARRL in recent years.

Quote
As one of the 39 Member-Societies of IARU Region 2, the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.


Providing an email address only allows those interested to send comments. Based on this message and the handling of communications and concerns about the most recent band plan work, I am not sanguine that those comments will be heard and acted upon in a manner that is in the best interest of amateur radio.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 11, 2007, 09:46:05 PM
I" Sorry, the second grade excuse, "cuz other countries are doing it" doesn't cut it. If this is really such an important issue, a reasonable premise should be presented.

They probably will, if and when they decide to move forward with a new proposal to the FCC.

A premise or socialization of the voluntary Region 2 plan, before the vote, with U. S. amateurs would have been prudent if it directly affected our operating on the HF bands. Since it does not, and since it doesn't preempt our existing FCC rules and regulations, I see no point to it.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 11, 2007, 09:54:24 PM
Using that logic, I see no point in the ARRL participation. If it can't explain to its members why it approved any action or initiative at an IARU meeting, then it is not doing its job. Even if I disagreed with the ARRL position, I'd have far more respect for them, and the position, if they explained themselves. It's not just a smart thing to do, it's their duty.


I" Sorry, the second grade excuse, "cuz other countries are doing it" doesn't cut it. If this is really such an important issue, a reasonable premise should be presented.

They probably will, if and when they decide to move forward with a new proposal to the FCC.

A premise or socialization of the voluntary Region 2 plan, before the vote, with U. S. amateurs would have been prudent if it directly affected our operating on the HF bands. Since it does not, and since it doesn't preempt our existing FCC rules and regulations, I see no point to it.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 11, 2007, 10:04:49 PM
I have been listening to the news bulletins from WA0RCR on 1860 kHz AM Saturday nights.  All of those "2 meter CB-type of bulletin programs" are played plus some wacko ham programming.  I don't know how many hours it takes for it to repeat.  The bulletin starts about 2 p.m. Saturday afternoon and runs for about 14 - 15 hours. I can hear it by 5 p.m. now.  I think I heard the ARRL story last Saturday night.
- - - - - -
I received a donation request letter from Mary Hobart, Chief Development Officer of the ARRL.  They are $52,500 short of their 2007 goal for the Development revenue they promised to raise.

What is raised so far is:
Spectrum Defense Fund $453,217
Educations & Technology Fund $114,061
The ARRL Diamond Club  $313,547
Education Grant $135.563
Unrestricted Funds (?) $103,710
W1AW Endowment $20,111
Other Endowmwnt $17,633
2007 total $1,157,842.

The second to last paragraph -
"You and I have a mutual goal of supporting a fiscally sound and responsible organization that will serve you, our members.  When you make the most generous contribution you can before December 31, the leadership staff of ARRL will manage your gift carefully and ensure that it is applied for the purpose that you designate.  We cannot and will not do otherwise."
- - - - - -
I feel like one of the guys in a PBS studio - "won't you help?"


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 12, 2007, 04:33:22 AM
Hello there Tom, How are you,

 I was reading your post, interesting amount of monies, i wonder the monthy interest quite a sum i would assume...

 They are Short and interested in the "purpose that you designate" interesting...I have no backround in accounting although i do understand fiscal responsibility, have been audited a few times down through the years here..

 Considering present actions all i can think of: "how's it feel to want"..

 Ya know raisng a little boy here is wonderful and when we go down to the BaseBall field with the other boys they do have one thing on their mind.."Playing BaseBall"..

interesting...

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 12, 2007, 04:52:52 AM
Quote
I feel like one of the guys in a PBS studio - "won't you help?"

"Or you could turn the page ..."


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on December 12, 2007, 09:15:45 AM
Steve said:
Quote
it can't explain to its members why it approved any action or initiative at an IARU meeting, then it is not doing its job.

In this case all US amateurs, not just members since they are representing the US contingent.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 12, 2007, 09:55:37 AM
Received this in an email this morning. Looks like some others are POed too. I don't agree with their contention that AM is outlawed (at least for US amateurs), but I do agree with their point about how the ARRL is not representing us. I say, "they" since I don't know who or what group wrote this.


===
The New IARU Region 2 Bandplan:

Mortal Threat to AM and Vintage Radio Operation!

Recently, the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU), a confederation of national amateur radio societies, announced its recommended bandplan for mediumwave and HF operation in ITU Region 2 (North America, South America, and neighboring islands). This bandplan takes effect on January 1, 2008. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is the member society from the United States.

The new bandplan totally eliminates conventional AM operation on all MF/HF bands except for two narrow segments on 75 meters and on a segment of the 10 meter band. SSB operators don't get off so easily, either, as the segments recommended for voice or "all modes" limit occupied bandwidth to not more than 2700 Hz. Such a limitation renders much existing radio equipment obsolete. Are you willing to plunk down $3,000 or more for a new radio?

Here is a summary of the new bandplan:

160 meters – no AM.

80 meters – AM in 3600 – 3625 and 3875 - 3900 segments only, 6 kHz. occupied bandwidth.

40 meters – no AM.

30 meters – no AM. (AM not allowed now.)

20 meters – no AM.

17 meters – no AM.

15 meters – no AM.

12 meters – no AM.

10 meters – AM allowed 29000 – 29300, 6 kHz. occupied bandwidth.

 

This bandplan reeks of the failed "regulation by bandwidth" petition (RM-11306) filed by the ARRL over a year ago. In the face of overwhelming opposition by the amateur radio community in the United States, the ARRL withdrew this petition, stating that they would "revisit" the issue. Could this new bandplan be their way of "revisiting" RM-11306? Read it for yourself! (Adobe .pdf file) Their next step could be to file a rulemaking petition before the FCC to require U.S. amateur radio operators to follow this bandplan. Kiss your vintage equipment good-bye!

We must voice our opposition to the various IARU representatives and we must do all we can to fight the ARRL, which seems to do a better job of representing the companies that advertise in QST than they do of representing us. If you are an ARRL member, drop your membership, making sure to tell them why you are doing so. Do not buy their publications and tell the companies that advertise in ARRL publications that you will not buy their products until they drop their advertising. Perhaps we should also petition the IARU to decertify the ARRL as the member society of the United States, perhaps substituting the venerable Radio Club of America? For the ARRL never consulted its members (about 21% of all licensed radio amateurs in the United States), nor did they consult the American amateur radio community at large for any input on this bandplan.

Here are the Region 2 officials of the IARU:

OFFICERS:

President:
Rod Stafford W6ROD
5155 Shadow Estates
San Jose, CA 95135 USA
E-mail: w6rod@iaru.org
Phone: (408) 238-4671

Vice-President:
Dario Jurado HP1DJ
P.O. Box 55-0812 Paitilla
Panama, Rep. of Panama
E-mail: hp1dj@sinfo.net
Phone: +507 221-3157
Cell Phone: +507 637-9326
Fax: +507 221-4685

Secretary:
Reinaldo Leandro YV5AMH
c/o Radio Club Venezolano
PO Box 2285
Caracas 1010-A, Venezuela
E-mail: mailto:leandror@bellsouth.net
Phone: +58 212 239-3192

Treasurer:
Noel Donawa 9Y4NED
98 Sapphire Drive
Diamond Vale, Trinidad
E-mail: 9y4ned@tstt.net.tt
Phone: (868) 637-4773
Fax: (868) 632-8255
Cell Phone: (868) 680-2004

DIRECTORS:

Area A:
Daniel Lamoureux VE2KA
2080 St. Jacques App 4
Montreal, QC H3J 2S1
Canada
E-mail: ve2ka@iaru.org
Phone: (514) 939-6456

Area B:
Rod Stafford W6ROD
5155 Shadow Estates
San Jose, CA 95135
USA
E-mail: w6rod@arrl.org
Phone/Fax: (408) 363-1360

Area C:
Pedro Rodriguez CO2RP
P.O. Box 6060
Havana 6, Cuba
E-mail: co2rp@jovenclub.cu
Phone: +53 7 730-2223

Area D:
Marco Tulio Gudiel TG9AGD
P.O. Box 115
Guatemala City, Guatemala
E-mail: gudiel@comtelsa.com
Phone: +502 2431-5914

Area E:
Noel Donawa 9Y4NED
98 Sapphire Drive
Diamond Vale, Trinidad
E-mail: 9y4ned@tstt.net.tt
Phone: (868) 637-4773

Area F:
Gustavo de Faria Franco PT2ADM
SQS 210 Bl "E" apt 501
Brasilia DF
Cep 70273 050 Brazil
E-mail: pt2adm@pobox.com
mailto:%20pt2adm@arrl.net
Phone: +55 61 443-8030
+55 61 443-1154
Work: +55 61 234-7456
Cell Phone: +55 61 7811-1121
Fax: +55 61 234-7456


Area G:
Reinaldo Szama LU2AH
Gorostiaga 2320 P.15 "A"
1426 Buenos Aires
Argentina
E-mail: lu2ah@szama.com
Phone: +54 11 4776-2503
Fax: +54 11 4613-3004


When those who claim to represent us refuse to do so, the solution is revolution!

===


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 12, 2007, 12:30:36 PM
That out-dated IARU Officers list keeps circulatin' I see.

Rod Stafford is the U.S. representative but is no longer the President for Region 2.  The old Secretary Leandro has moved up as the new President, and a Mexican is the new Secretary for Region 2.

The IARU Region 2 Plan is voluntary so your radios are not obsolete, unless the FCC Part 97 Rules change.  So be on the lookout for a way for the ARRL to get Part 97 changed under the radar; by some lawsuit, it that possible?

I wrote Leandro just after the September 2007 Brazil Conference and I requested the updates/resolutions (if any) that were passed, and I am still waiting for them to be posted. 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 12, 2007, 12:55:01 PM
Received this in an email this morning. Looks like some others are POed too. I don't agree with their contention that AM is outlawed (at least for US amateurs), but I do agree with their point about how the ARRL is not representing us. I say, "they" since I don't know who or what group wrote this.
===
The New IARU Region 2 Bandplan:

Mortal Threat to AM and Vintage Radio Operation!

Here is a summary of the new bandplan:

160 meters – no AM.

80 meters – AM in 3600 – 3625 and 3875 - 3900 segments only, 6 kHz. occupied bandwidth.

40 meters – no AM.

30 meters – no AM. (AM not allowed now.)

20 meters – no AM.

17 meters – no AM.

15 meters – no AM.

12 meters – no AM.

10 meters – AM allowed 29000 – 29300, 6 kHz. occupied bandwidth.

When those who claim to represent us refuse to do so, the solution is revolution!
===

The band plan chart in the e-mail is incorrect, and as Tom pointed out, so is the officers list.

The band plan does include an AM mention for 40 and 20 meters:
1/1/08 Region 2 Chart:
40M 7100-7300 KHz - Bandwidth box has (*) - (*) allows DSB AM 6KHz (page 4, at top of page)
20M 14285-14300 KHz - Bandwidth box also has (*) - same rule


People have too much time on their hands.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 12, 2007, 02:42:51 PM
I recognize the text now, overall it is not my writing, but some of it was pulled from my original pass-along e-mail letter on the IARU Region 2 band plan, mailed out in early October.  The plan listing was correct for the time, the IARU revised the proposed band plan 2 weeks later.  That later version received 10/25 (dated 10/16) has the 40 and 20 meter changes.

I pulled the IARU officers list from the web or from someone else’s post and we did not know that the officers were changed at the September conference at the time either.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 12, 2007, 03:30:44 PM
As ZGC, myself, and others have pointed out over the last two months, there is lots and lots of wrong info, misquoted info, misinterpreted info, half-quoted snippets of info, etc. etc.

The U. S. amateur band arena will be no different come 1/1/08.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 12, 2007, 04:19:20 PM
Quote
As ZGC, myself, and others have pointed out over the last two months, there is lots and lots of wrong info, misquoted info, misinterpreted info, half-quoted snippets of info, etc. etc.


For sure, with most of it coming from the ARRL.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 12, 2007, 06:04:25 PM
Except Rinaldo.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on December 12, 2007, 06:09:33 PM
Then make sure on  1/1/08 you face Newington and bow...... or maybe bend over ;)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on December 12, 2007, 07:14:20 PM
Man, that email has me worried.  We've always had to fight against Idiot Slopbucketeers, but now a lot of otherwise reasonable folks will think we are flaunting some rules or regs or something (they will just know that AM is illegal and that will be enough) So just another reason why this "band Plan" should have been much more widely publicized and disgussed.

It's damn near IMPOSSIBLE to unteach something once it's out...

I guess I'd better build that QRO rig double quick!! STRAP may be the only solution left to us.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 12, 2007, 07:49:57 PM

Man, that email has me worried.  We've always had to fight against Idiot Slopbucketeers, but now a lot of otherwise reasonable folks will think we are flaunting some rules or regs or something (they will just know that AM is illegal and that will be enough) So just another reason why this "band Plan" should have been much more widely publicized and disgussed.

It's damn near IMPOSSIBLE to unteach something once it's out...

I guess I'd better build that QRO rig double quick!! STRAP may be the only solution left to us.

That's exactly my thoughts (see my previous posting) why we should be concerned about this thing even though it doesn't affect our legal standing.  To a lot of people, this will make us out to be "bad guys" regardless, simply because we are intentionally ignoring the published band plan.  And this is happening just as AM had finally once again become accepted by the greater amateur radio community as a legitimate facet of mainstream amateur radio.

Will see you on 3625-3780 and 3800-3875, as well as anywhere on 160, the week starting 01JA08.  I'll have my hand on the throttle.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WB2EMS on December 12, 2007, 09:08:48 PM
That letter is worrisome for just the reasons stated. I wonder if it might be possible to preempt some of the problems by having Riley or someone authoritative at the FCC put out some sort of statement to head off the yahoos who will be just  itching to be kilocycle kops because "AM is now illegal". Maybe a couple of quick enforcement actions against QRM'ers would help too.

Probably too much to hope for.

Damn the ARRL for starting this mess!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 12, 2007, 10:36:06 PM
Damn the ARRL for starting this mess!

They didn't.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 12, 2007, 11:05:41 PM
I was poking around the IARU Region 3 web site and spotted a Word file that was presented by the IARU Region 2 Secretary at a Region 3 meeting in August 2006. It was a review of recent activities in IARU Region 2.

One highlight:
"The Region 2 HF Committee was reactivated by the Executive Committee which has selected a group of very experienced and knowledgeable amateur radio to integrate it. The R2HFC will be chaired by Mark Weiss K6FG and the other committee members are:  Robert Simpson VE3ODR, Ramon Santoyo XE1KK, Jeff Austin 9Y4JA, Region 2 Secretary Reinaldo Leandro YV5AMH and R2 Director Reinaldo Szama LU2AH. One of the first orders of business for the newly appointed committee will be to review the Region 2 band plans and make any recommendations for changes to the band plans for adoption at the next triennial Region 2 Conference."

The entire report is here:
http://www.jarl.or.jp/iaru-r3/r3bandplan.doc (http://www.jarl.or.jp/iaru-r3/r3bandplan.doc)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: n1exi on December 13, 2007, 09:00:39 AM
  13,700+ views to this thread.
 THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PLUS!!!
  AM , the most purist voice mode of radio communication will never be denied.
  Those in the backrooms, pushing for it's demise, will be soundly defeated by the sheer
   numbers of the members of our community

  Greg, n1exi


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on December 13, 2007, 09:24:19 AM
Quote
"The Region 2 HF Committee was reactivated by the Executive Committee....

Pete.... who is (on) the "Executive Committee ???? I can't find that anywhere.

Never mind .........  R2 EXECS  (http://www.iaru-r2.org/executive-committee/)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 13, 2007, 03:19:18 PM
  13,700+ views to this thread.
 THIRTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED PLUS!!!
  AM , the most purist voice mode of radio communication will never be denied.
  Those in the backrooms, pushing for it's demise, will be soundly defeated by the sheer
   numbers of the members of our community

Most of us have helped tick up the number by opening the thread multiple times as more comments are added.  But still, that number suggests that a lot of outsiders have discovered it as well.  Hopefully, that includes some of the HQ gang.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 14, 2007, 08:16:09 AM
Different audience now gets to consider the mess made in Brazil.

http://www.eham.net/articles/18150 (http://www.eham.net/articles/18150)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on December 14, 2007, 09:18:08 AM
I see W8JI has submitted his "words of wisdom." Naturally, he being employed by one of QST's biggest advertisers, he would singing praises of the ARRgghhL.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on December 14, 2007, 11:20:57 AM
Tom's a very bright, almost brilliant, guy........ Technically.

Unfortunatly many very bright people tend to be arrogant and condescending. Their need to control those who disagree with them is consuming ,at times. Thus we get calls for more regulations designed to be what's "best" for the common man.

Throughout history this has only lead to a "slavery" of types and can only be accomplished by bringing the masses DOWN to a state of mediocrity. It would be a shame if we allow ham radio to be regulated to a 2.7Khz squawking mass. If that ever happens... I'm gone huntin'. My station proceeds could fund a nice Elk hunt in Loveland, Colorado.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 14, 2007, 12:38:59 PM
He's very competent technically in some narrow areas. Outside of those he has shown great ignorance. He surely does not understand the spectral characteristics of the human voice (or he chooses to ignore) as his flawed analysis of enhanced bandwidth SSB shows.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 14, 2007, 01:17:18 PM
The new IARU Region 2 Band Plan continues to rattle the world.

This news headline appeared on Yahoo this morning:
Poor nations vow to resist “threats” to curb emissions.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on December 14, 2007, 01:25:53 PM
 You sure they ain't talking about birth control, Tom ? ::)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 14, 2007, 01:29:52 PM
One can always selectively (intentionally or otherwise)  present facts to prove one's assertions.

One should always bear in mind that the more you know, the more you (should) recognize all of the stuff that you don't know.

It's because of a lack of awareness, not intelligence, that you sometimes have to tell someone they have halitosis.

PS:

Buddly, it was just announced that the National Park Service is going to start allowing Elk hunting in Rocky Mountain National Park for the first time in a hundred years, to cull the resulting overpopulation. You might want to keep an ear open for details. I would imagine fairly easy pickings the first year's hunt, but that terrain up there sure can be challenging and motor vehicle use is restricted.





Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on December 14, 2007, 03:36:59 PM
All this because some people think that Digital is the "Wave of the Future" and "of course it's better, it's Digital" etc.

Oh and lets not forget the Government Cash Cow Influence...

Quote
Several years ago, the Department of Homeland Security suggested to the ARRL president that the Amateur community should design and maintain a national digital network for emergency communications purposes.  Winlink 2000 was their network of choice. Today, the ARRL Amateur Radio Emergency Service® (ARES) and Radio amateur civil emergency service (RACES) has been busy deploying Winlink 2000 county by county across the country .


Always Follow the Money.

Perhaps a last attempt to keep the "Service" relevant in the New Age. 

Does this remind any of the OT fella's of how the SSB/AM wars started???  HEY LOOK A NEW TECHNOLOGY  AINT IT JUST SOOOOOO...

Ahh I'm disgusted... I guess if all this goes through, I'll just go back to making Tesla Coils... that are Resonant on the HF bands!!!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Art on December 14, 2007, 04:27:42 PM
"Their need to control those who disagree with them is consuming ,at times. Thus we get calls for more regulations designed to be what's "best" for the common man."

Since only a small portion of US amateur radio operators benefit from this ARRL (oh 'scuze me. . .  it wasn't really the ARRL . . . just ARRL management and past management) scheme. . . . and no countries can be found who benefit from this ARRL scheme. Why does it exist?
This has a sadly familiar ring to it. It is a microcosm of larger constructs today. In my opinion:The ARRL and very few individuals obviously have only their own interests in mind and are willing to inflict their actions and constraints on others to aggrandize and enrich themselves. At least the few individuals who support this are to be respected for their opinions. They are not charged with, nor in any way, representing other than themselves. (Though they obviously would like you to believe they do.) The ARRL *is* charged with representing the majority of amateur radio operators in the US in this matter. They are simply not doing so. That is the problem.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 14, 2007, 05:59:46 PM
Under the heading of – “Still Waiting for Minutes To Be Published” -

In addition to the IARU Region II Conference of September, 2007,

Add the following:

Minutes Of the ARRL Executive Committee,  Little Rock, Arkansas – October  6, 2007.  This would be Number 482.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 14, 2007, 06:32:00 PM
Sometimes i think..the elimination of AM one of the easiest basic signals to produce is warranted  inlue of the Media push to eliminate local broadcast for piped in signals. one hand washes the other who's in bed with who...look at cable TV.. what a Joke all these channels and I watch 3...for how much money...unreal...

Todays Corps want it all under one roof..the money is in closed circuit...nothing free...close all the gaps...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 14, 2007, 07:32:20 PM
I just found the minutes of the ARRL October 2007 Executive Committee meeting by searching with Google.   The minutes are normally announced on the ARRL site under "News/Bulletins" then click "Announcements".  The Announcements page has not been updated since October 25, about the time one would expect the Minutes announcement to be posted by.

The MINUTES OF ARRL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Number 484, Little Rock, Arkansas – October 6, 2007, can be found here:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_484.html

It looks like there have been 2 additional executive committee meetings since the last bi-annual meeting in March (#481) before this October meeting.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 14, 2007, 07:47:44 PM
The 2 interceding teleconference meeting minutes can be found at:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_482.html

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_483.html



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 14, 2007, 10:08:22 PM
I see W8JI has submitted his "words of wisdom." Naturally, he being employed by one of QST's biggest advertisers, he would singing praises of the ARRgghhL.

Which one does he work for ? Not that it matters.
Looks like he's got wood for AM. From his website, the only AM he cites has no actual victim to his rant:
Quote
The Operator Problem
The final problem is not so much the mentally deranged operator, they are few and far between, but rather the selfish unbending operator who only follows the letter of the law. Without enforceable bandwidth guidelines, a selfish operator could park a transmitter that would wipe out weak narrow signals anywhere he wanted. He could claim he didn't hear you, and you could not prove differently. 160 meter weak signal operators are all familiar with a group of W5's who parked on 1824 SSB just "because they could". The JA stations only have 1810-1825, many other DX stations could not go below 1810 or above 1825, and this was a frequent spot for DXpeditions to operate CW.  They clearly and intentionally violated the bandplan...because they felt they legally could.

It took years and ultimately required FCC intervention to get them to move to another frequency in an otherwise clear band!

They aren't the only group. WA0RCR runs wide AM broadcasts on 1860 KHz, wiping out SSB up and down 5kHz. In the 1970's W8LZM, W8ETO, W8LAD, and a few others formed a "Window Shade Net" with the sole intention of QRM'ing weak DX. One of the original "Window Shade Net" members is still alive and actively QRM'ing DX today! He has a history of over 40 years of willful QRM and violating bandplans.

One person can easily wipe out the pleasure of hundreds when we depend on bandplans. They only need a desire to cause QRM, without enforceable bandplans they have the means.

A workable non-regulated band requires all operators to be willing to sacrifice and compromise. It requires everyone to respect bandplans, and to use good judgment.

We often hear "160 works without segmentation", yet when a petition was filed to segment the band several hundred people filed in favor of segmentation. Only a handful filed against forced segmentation, and those people were all wide bandwidth mode operators.  "160 works" for those who work wider modes with strong signals, and it works exceptionally well for those who like to cause intentional QRM. 

Summary
There is logical technical evidence to support this statement. Mixed modes and mixed bandwidths are both clearly problematic.

We need to encourage regulations that separate or segment areas of bands by signal bandwidth.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 14, 2007, 10:23:06 PM
The 2 interceding teleconference meeting minutes can be found at:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_482.html

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_483.html


Actually we reported on the October Meeting on the ARRL Forum back on October 17th.
http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=12373.0 (http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=12373.0)
I didn't go further back to find the earlier one. "We" also try to highlight and/or "point to" any of the Committee Meetings, that are presented at the BoD meetings, that may have some relevance.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 15, 2007, 12:11:41 AM
Let me get this straight.
I'm not supposed to operate on AM because some hams that I never heard of supposedly broke the law 30 years ago?

Makes perfect sense to me.

I better turn my sideband rig off, too. God knows what sort of unlawful evil has been perpetrated on 20 meter SSB...

And don't bring up the repeater jammers in California or I'll have to dump the 2 meter FM rig, too.




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 15, 2007, 01:02:23 AM
Quote
but rather the selfish unbending operator who only follows the letter of the law.

This is a laughable statement since he is just as selfish and unbending. These so called, weak signal DXers on 160 want every one else in the word to step aside for their little sideshow. Never mind that they represent far less than 1% of active amateur radio operators. If that's not selfish, I don't know what is.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 15, 2007, 06:46:53 AM
Different audience now gets to consider the mess made in Brazil.

http://www.eham.net/articles/18150 (http://www.eham.net/articles/18150)

Good Morning Paul, Everyone,

 After reading the comments on that forum I see the age old Legacy mode "differences of Opinion" is alive and well, that is that...I just have one question listening across all the bands in regards to Phone, I don't think i haven't heard at least once in any QSO where the question of "Audio Sound" doesn't come up...I think the "1%" comment is invalid and considering the equipment that is being pumped out today that is addressing "Audio".... "for Phone"...just how are we going to address this growing width problem...interesting...

 Well the figure that has been established by our representatives for world compliance is digging up some of the past grievances so we are coming full circle ..and all thanks to be given to the originators...well done....

 What's Next..?


PS. Paul your writing was Magnificent and your arguments were well seeded..



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: W3SLK on December 15, 2007, 09:26:51 AM
Paul said:
Quote
Which one does he work for ? Not that it matters.

Why he was the brain trust behind the Ameritron amps. I often question their workmanship (personally I thought the tuning caps and roller inductors were rather chincey). But people like them.

Steve said:
Quote
These so called, weak signal DXers on 160 want every one else in the word to step aside for their little sideshow. Never mind than they represent far less than 1% of active amateur radio operators.


I have first hand experience with that. Last year Joe, N3IBX and myself were near the upper fringe. There was a qso on 1885 and we wanted to discusses some stuff OT from the roundtable. We both monitored 1868 for activity for about 10 min. with nothing heard. About 5 min. into our QSO, we were pummeled by a plethora of sloppbucketeers. So we made mention about the intentional QRM. Later I get an email from the guy stating that he was in QSO with another ham in east Datdere, and I ruined his QSO. To me a freq. not in use is an un-used freq. I don't care where it is located. If someone politely asks me if I would mind moving due to a sched. with another DX station, I'll do that but don't hold the freq. hostage!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 15, 2007, 03:19:23 PM
I did find a listing of the Board Minutes on the ARRL site, but not under ‘Announcements’.  You have to hit the yellow button ‘ARRL Info’ then hit ‘General Information’ then hit ‘Board Meeting Minutes/Reports’ then click on the meeting minutes desired.

Recent ARRL Minutes.  Notable excerpts (by my opinion) with any relevance to the IARU, IARU 2 band plan, regulation by bandwidth, ARRL board and officer methods of operating (anything to give us insight to future strategy):

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_482.html

# 482 – April 10, 2007.  A 52 minute teleconference, short Minutes, adopted the resolution to withdraw RM-11306.

Notable excerpt –
“Mr. Harrison opened discussion by noting that the public comments filed with the FCC on the ARRL’s “regulation by bandwidth” petition, RM-11306, paint a very confusing picture as to the sentiments of the amateur community. This is the result of many factors, including the ARRL’s filing of an ex parte statement and the subsequent correction of an error in the statement as well as concerns that are not directly related to the concept of regulation by bandwidth itself. He commented that he remains very supportive of the concept of regulation by bandwidth and believes that the majority of the ARRL Board is as well; however, it will be very difficult for the FCC to proceed on the basis of the existing record.”

Mr. Imlay was asked to explain the procedural options that are available to the FCC.”
- - - - -

Board Second Meeting July 20-21, 2007.  Large attendance with wide range of topics.

http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0707/

Notable excerpts -
“3. Tim Ellam, VE6SH, Vice President of the International Amateur Radio Union, thanked the Board for the invitation to attend and for the support given to IARU.”

“11. At this point President Harrison appointed an ad hoc committee to draft a document concerning proper handling and dissemination of confidential and sensitive information that will be added to the Director’s Workbook. Vice President Craigie, General Counsel Imlay, Director Bellows, and Vice Director Ahrens were appointed to the committee.”

“34. On motion of Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Leggette, it was VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors thanks those involved in digital networks that serve ARES, and specifically the Winlink 2000 development team for creation of a system facilitating Amateur Radio’s ability to serve society’s emergency communication needs. The League affirms its desire to work with developers of digital systems including the Winlink 2000 system to improve efficiency, address control issues, and enhance compatibility with other users of the Amateur Radio bands.”
- - - - - -

# 483 – September 27, 2007.  A 60 minute teleconference, concerning the disqualified southwest director candidate. 

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_483.html

Notable excerpts –

“President Harrison noted that the sole item before the Committee was consideration of an appeal lodged by Carl Gardenias, WU6D, who, though originally found qualified as a candidate in the current election for Southwestern Division Director (which, due to his candidacy, was a contested election), was subsequently declared disqualified by the Ethics and Elections Committee. The action of the Ethics and Elections Committee was taken after evaluation of certain actions and/or inactions of the candidate.”
 - -
“President Harrison next asked Ethics and Elections Committee chair Tom Frenaye to please explain the rationale of that Committee in disqualifying Mr. Gardenias. Mr. Frenaye rendered a complete account…”
- - - - -

# 484 – October 6, 2007.  An 8-hour conference, concerning a broad range of items including the ongoing BPL fight and IARU 2 conference. 
http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_484.html

Notable excerpts  –

Under Legal/regulatory action items –
“3.4. The committee discussed briefly the status of efforts to develop a generally acceptable proposal to regulate amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. While addressing the issues that arise from the introduction of many new digital modes into the HF bands cannot be postponed indefinitely, it is important to develop a consensus in the amateur community before seeking FCC rulemaking again. The committee will not be offering specific recommendations to the Board for consideration at its 2008 Annual Meeting.”

Under -  International matters
“9.1. Those present who attended the IARU Region 2 Conference in Brasilia, September 10-14, reported on their experiences. Mr. Stafford was present in his capacity as President and area Director of Region 2. Mr. Harrison headed the ARRL delegation, chaired the Electoral Committee and served on the Finance Committee. Mrs. Craigie and Mr. Butler served on the Technical/Operational Committee. Mr. Sumner served on the Administrative Committee. Also representing the ARRL, Jon Siverling, WB3ERA served as Secretary of the Administrative Committee and Paul Rinaldo, W4RI was Secretary of the Technical/Operational Committee. Mr. Stafford did not stand for re-election as President. Region 2 Secretary Reinaldo Leandro, YV5AMH was elected President and Ramón Santoyo, XE1KK was elected Secretary. The other officers and Directors of Region 2 were re-elected.”
- - -
“9.4. Mr. Stafford observed that a study of a possible comprehensive restructuring of the IARU is underway. Whether there is a restructuring of the IARU will affect how IARU officers are selected in the future.”
- - -
Under - Other business -
“16.2. Arrangements for the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Board were discussed briefly.”
- - - - - -

The ARRL Annual Meeting of the Board is scheduled for January 2008.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 15, 2007, 06:02:05 PM
Fascinating.
Nice digging there Tom, and a hearty pat on the back for the effort.

Wouldn't you like to know what the "confidential" stuff is in the Director's workbook? I guess we have to get one of us elected there to blow the cover off.  I suspect the Midwest Division will be in play...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 15, 2007, 10:27:30 PM
One needs to read these BoD minutes Executive Committee minutes, and Committee Reports right when they come out verses reading them 6 months later. It helps to cut down on the surprise factor. The Annual Report also has some great info. It also pays to read the minutes and reports from all 3 IARU Regions because often you can get a head's up on what might be considered going forward in your own Region since other Regions may also give presentations.

Another great place to get ARRL monthly activities in a somewhat capsule and sanitized format is from the ARRL's main page. Here's the November monthly activity:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2007/11/30/3/?nc=1 (http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2007/11/30/3/?nc=1)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 16, 2007, 06:21:42 AM
Fascinating.
Nice digging there Tom, and a hearty pat on the back for the effort.

Wouldn't you like to know what the "confidential" stuff is in the Director's workbook? I guess we have to get one of us elected there to blow the cover off.  I suspect the Midwest Division will be in play...



Aye too Paul,

 In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything...In today's state of communications, Real time openness is key and Available now, why shud any operator Have to go through hoops in searching for information regarding any and all state of operations it shud be stated Face open in all manner of communications available, Again Communicators acting as Communicators.

 I don't subscribe to answering to this bureaucracy they haven't the respect to ask first before acting which is gud logic, I've seen first hand what respectful questioning has been answered with, and I personally don't like the Puppet answers.

 At this point my answer to them and their Puppets is "The Amateurs Code" read that an then give me an answer to what is considered Good Amateur practice in Representing Amateurs.

Faces West.






Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 16, 2007, 03:05:44 PM
There is tons of information on past, present, and ongoing  activities on the ARRL site, the weekly ARRL Letter, main page Amateur Radio News, and possibly your Division's web site and/or your monthly Division e-mail newsletter (if your Division does one). Reading this stuff on a regular basis, will keep you well informed. If you wait for someone to bring down a snippet of news to the forum for discussion, by the time you read it, it could already be rolled into a ball of gunk.

Jack said: "In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything."

In every Corporation there are "things" that should be made public for all eyes to see, but like all Corporations, there are some "things" (off the record discussions, proposed ideas among management, financial implications or future financial actions, etc.) that should remain "not for the world to see". It's part of business.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 16, 2007, 03:10:54 PM
Bad comparison Pete. The ARRL members are not the public, they are part owners of the "company." While I agree, not every conversation should be reported to the members, any and every official conversation, meeting and action, financial or otherwise, should be reported to the members. True transparency will reduce or eliminate the rumors and mistrust the ARRL hierarchy complains to much about.


There is tons of information on past, present, and ongoing  activities on the ARRL site, the weekly ARRL Letter, main page Amateur Radio News, and possibly your Division's web site and/or your monthly Division e-mail newsletter (if your Division does one). Reading this stuff on a regular basis, will keep you well informed. If you wait for someone to bring down a snippet of news to the forum for discussion, by the time you read it, it could already be rolled into a ball of gunk.

Jack said: "In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything."

In every Corporation there are "things" that should be made public for all eyes to see, but like all Corporations, there are some "things" (off the record discussions, proposed ideas among management, financial implications or future financial actions, etc.) that should remain "not for the world to see". It's part of business.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 17, 2007, 04:52:12 AM
Good Morning,

 Pete you have to understand, I myself and there are others understand one thing: The league has a solution for and continues to produce at will an idea, for a Non-Problem that doesn't exist, when you understand that then you and i will be on equal terms.

Look i'm just an old general that likes weak sig CW once in awhile and i dearly enjoy listening in on well produced AM leave it alone.....the only problem that does exist is personal accountability on the air.

The rules that are in place are fine and in need of no trimming or pruning...be loyal to your people your people will simplify your needs, the technology up and coming is wonderful when needed make room...the answer for their winlink and echo whatever is in line of sight repeatability....simple...


My reasoning is very simple: By burdening the system with more stringent regs it's just adds to the already overly populated radio kops...also everybody is already preparing for 2009, we all know that closed circuit is today's tech, the feed is Sat now it does cost money and we all know the potential of monies that will be generated. Please Keep that business out of our service...

jack KA3ZLR.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 17, 2007, 12:00:23 PM
Feller named Keith, KB1SF, has posted to one of the discussion threads about the controversial IARU Region 2 band plan, and makes the case, albeit unwittingly, for increased use of AM on HF, so that we are seen as "fully occupying and using the frequencies we've been allocated.." Here is part of his posting:

Just before I stepped down as President of AMSAT-NA, I remember some of our experimenters had proposed placing a wideband (HF to UHF and above) receiver on one of our satellites then under construction. The receiver would be able to listen on any frequency (or series of frequencies) on these bands from Low Earth orbit and would even digitally store what it heard for later download.

Unfortunately, this was all happening at about the same time the ARRL was locked in battle with the “Little LEOs” who had formally requested parts of our 2m and 70 Cm spectrum be re-allocated to the commercial satellite service for their world-wide use.

Needless to say, once the ARRL got wind of what AMSAT was proposing, they had a proverbial "cow". Why? Simply because the downloads from our wideband receiver would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our Ham bands are NOT being used in an “efficient” manner and that the Little LEO proponents could now use that information against us to argue their case for world-wide sharing (if not re-allocation) of our spectrum! Sadly, based purely on current spectral use, it became painfully clear that our Amateur Radio interests simply wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in such an argument.

Now, while it appears the “Little LEO” threat has gone away (at least for the moment), I think the long-term implications of this issue should be a wake-up call to us all.

Folks, the overriding threat to Amateur Radio’s existence these days has absolutely NOTHING to do with which mode goes where. Rather, our own lack of interest in growing our ranks (and actually fully occupying and using the frequencies we've been allocated) is what will eventually "do us in".

That is, many of us still have licenses, but fewer and fewer of us are regularly operating on the air. And, in the eyes of some VERY well heeled commercial interests (who, by the way, are also listening to us) that makes our bands “ripe for the picking” because they are mostly empty these days. In their eyes, we are sitting on GOBS of commercially valuable spectrum space that (in their for-profit, corporate minds) is being “wasted” on an ever-dwindling bunch of crusty old curmudgeons who remain stuck in the sociological and technological 1950s...that is, people still hell-bent on communicating with each other using "ancient" Morse code and quaint, tube-type radios.

While it’s certainly fun to reminisce about “what was” and argue (ad nauseum) which tiny slice of spectrum gets to be used by whom, the sad truth is that we live in the present, not the past. And, unless we all (yours truly included) begin spending a LOT more time on the air (and less time here chatting on the Internet about how our bands should (or shouldn’t) be carved up among ourselves) I’m afraid much of our spectrum is going to eventually be re-allocated to some other service based on our own benign neglect.

Sadly, when that happens, we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 17, 2007, 01:18:55 PM
Somebody will profit greatly from these vacated analog TV frequencies and it's going to be real interesting to see exactly who that might be?

That "somebody" will be the federal government, from the thousands of millions of $$ they will rake in from auctioning off spectrum that isn't theirs to auction off to begin with.  The corporations will pay big bucks for that spectrum, which they will recuperate by increasing the prices of their products, justified as "overhead" expense.  Eventually, those cost increases will filter down to nearly all consumer products.  So the bottom line is that spectrum auctions are, in reality, a new hidden federal tax that everyone will pay, whether or not they directly use the services of the corporations that won the spectrum auctions.

Quote
It seems likely that amateurs will fall prey to the old "use it or lose it" rule.
Therefore spectrum conservation and bandwidth limitation could actually hurt us in the long run.  It can be argued that amateurs who tinker with older equipment, still hell-bent on communicating with each other using "ancient" Morse code and quaint, tube-type radios, are at least learning something about the fundamentals of radio.  According to the broadcast industry, there is a dearth of qualified transmitter engineers who are well versed in RF techniques, in addition to present-day "digital" technology.

I suspect, rather than communications using "vintage" technology, it would be idiots like the 3892 and 3978 crew that might convince ITU delegates at the next WARC that amateur radio HF allocations are a waste of valuable spectrum.

However, if you listen between the ham bands, there is even more unused spectrum  sitting idle, except maybe in the SWBC bands.  I have yet to hear anything other than the channelised amateur operation in that "valuable" 60m spectrum.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on December 17, 2007, 02:59:40 PM
"160 works" for those who work wider modes with strong signals, and it works exceptionally well for those who like to cause intentional QRM. 


Those damn "wider modes" are the problem.

I wonder if his attitudes about excessive power are the same
 ;)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on December 17, 2007, 05:17:59 PM
He's a Corntester too, so he probably feels that Tetrodes with Handles are OK during certain "Critical Operations"



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 17, 2007, 07:11:25 PM
There is tons of information on past, present, and ongoing  activities on the ARRL site, the weekly ARRL Letter, main page Amateur Radio News, and possibly your Division's web site and/or your monthly Division e-mail newsletter (if your Division does one). Reading this stuff on a regular basis, will keep you well informed. If you wait for someone to bring down a snippet of news to the forum for discussion, by the time you read it, it could already be rolled into a ball of gunk.

Jack said: "In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything."

In every Corporation there are "things" that should be made public for all eyes to see, but like all Corporations, there are some "things" (off the record discussions, proposed ideas among management, financial implications or future financial actions, etc.) that should remain "not for the world to see". It's part of business.


Pete You see what has happened here, these past posts.

 I understand where your coming from completely, believe me, But I am very deeply angered by what has transpired. Now also i do understand the hand shaking that is taking place and what are some of the possible outcomes for the future. That's fine it's wonderful and take all the spectrum that is going to be needed if we don't we're going to lose it...but not on HF....enough of that, and also the other countries Do need to address their needs in this I understand that too..money Parrot's technology and visa verse and getting them onboard for the future is important, not to negate the very high possible gains to be made..very possible....

 I don't want to lose a buddy over this I really don't and Please tell your buddies..hey once in awhile include us too...that's all anybody asks here.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 17, 2007, 09:08:57 PM
Good Morning,

 The league has a solution for and continues to produce at will an idea, for a Non-Problem that doesn't exist...

If you're talking Region 2 band plan - All members of the IARU Region 2 members accepted the plan.

If you're talking about "regulation by bandwidth" rolling into FCC rules - No one has submitted any proposal at this time to request that to happen.

Quote
The rules that are in place are fine and in need of no trimming or pruning...be loyal to your people your people will simplify your needs, the technology up and coming is wonderful when needed make room...the answer for their winlink and echo whatever is in line of sight repeatability....simple...

My reasoning is very simple: By burdening the system with more stringent regs it's just adds to the already overly populated radio kops...also everybody is already preparing for 2009, we all know that closed circuit is today's tech, the feed is Sat now it does cost money and we all know the potential of monies that will be generated. Please Keep that business out of our service...

jack KA3ZLR.

It's not clear what it is you're trying to tell us here - "the feed is Sat now it does cost money and we all know the potential of monies that will be generated. Please Keep that business out of our service"

What does this have to do with the voluntary Region 2 band plan, the ARRL, or anything amateur radio?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 17, 2007, 09:16:36 PM
...but not on HF....enough of that, and also the other countries Do need to address their needs in this I understand that too..money Parrot's technology and visa verse and getting them onboard for the future is important, not to negate the very high possible gains to be made..very possible....

Maybe those "other countries" are really trying to get U. S. amateurs on board for the future since radio waves generally don't stop at the borders.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 18, 2007, 05:18:09 AM
I'm just not convinced, Pete,

 Knowing By Past Practice, actions of the league, i question this choice of Bandwidth for the agreement..OK you say maybe bring US up to standards, ok fine, i say there are those that have little concern for Phone..we will see But I'm not convinced by being told to disregard it...it places a question in the minds of every operator...we'll see what the future brings...I'm not worried about it as long as there's CW I'm losing no sleep.. I question the Motive that's all...I posted several ideas to bring your thoughts out I understand where your coming from, I understand the business aspect...But I also understand what Standardization brings..

Standing by to see what the Future holds...

 

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 18, 2007, 07:53:28 AM
I was thinking a couple weeks ago amazingly how little do we hear let alone work, let alone butt heads with other stations in Region 2, or Region 3 and 1 (except for Canada)?  Pete will talk about 20 meters, etcetera.  Yes, just the SSB DX’ers butting heads in a small segment.  So why punish AM’ers?

(By the way, remember that SSB is a half-assed AM signal, HI.)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 18, 2007, 01:59:17 PM
I was thinking a couple weeks ago amazingly how little do we hear let alone work, let alone butt heads with other stations in Region 2, or Region 3 and 1 (except for Canada)?  Pete will talk about 20 meters, etcetera.  Yes, just the SSB DX’ers butting heads in a small segment.  So why punish AM’ers?

Don't know where you're listening, but during the evening hours, I hear a number of Spanish speaking stations in QSO, outside the DX window, on 75 meters. Hear a number of them on 40 too. Never spent the time to check if the contacts were domestic/domestic, domestic/international, or international/international. Then, there's also the weak signal stuff and probably also some digital-type stuff in there too.

Quote
(By the way, remember that SSB is a half-assed AM signal, HI.)

And a sidebander might perceive that it takes an AM'er twice the number of sidebands to get any intelligence across. It's all in the mind of the "mode operator".



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 18, 2007, 02:55:56 PM
You can hear QSOs of many different languages on 80 meters at night. QSOs taking place and butting heads with US/Region 2 stations are two different things.

I was thinking a couple weeks ago amazingly how little do we hear let alone work, let alone butt heads with other stations in Region 2, or Region 3 and 1 (except for Canada)?  Pete will talk about 20 meters, etcetera.  Yes, just the SSB DX’ers butting heads in a small segment.  So why punish AM’ers?

Don't know where you're listening, but during the evening hours, I hear a number of Spanish speaking stations in QSO, outside the DX window, on 75 meters. Hear a number of them on 40 too. Never spent the time to check if the contacts were domestic/domestic, domestic/international, or international/international. Then, there's also the weak signal stuff and probably also some digital-type stuff in there too.

Quote
(By the way, remember that SSB is a half-assed AM signal, HI.)

And a sidebander might perceive that it takes an AM'er twice the number of sidebands to get any intelligence across. It's all in the mind of the "mode operator".




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 18, 2007, 03:16:50 PM
Yes Pete, you can hear'em if you listen for them, but were they causing interference to US or vice versa?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 18, 2007, 03:46:46 PM
Maybe those "other countries" are really trying to get U. S. amateurs on board for the future since radio waves generally don't stop at the borders.

How often do the high frequency audio sideband products  of US AM phone stations, or ESSB stations, cause any problem in Region 1 or Region 3 phone stations?  The guys in Europe or Australia/NZ trying to work US AM DX have to contend with extremely pissweak signals 99% of the time.  It is a non-issue.  Splatter from AM overmodulation, or overdriving or parasitics in a SSB leenyar  may be a different matter, but even that would likely cause a problem only to other stations in North America. 

The enumerated bandwidth figures should be eliminated from the band plans in all regions, and replaced with a "minimum bandwidth" clause similar to what already exists in US Part 97.

It would be easy enough to list band segments by emission type for modes already in use, and then in addition, specify limitations on necessary bandwidths for "other" modes not included on the list.  Even better than enumerated bandwiths for "other" modes would be specifications "not to exceed the bandwidths of" specific existing modes, including CW, RTTY, SSB and AM.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 18, 2007, 04:25:54 PM
The enumerated bandwidth figures should be eliminated from the band plans in all regions, and replaced with a "minimum bandwidth" clause similar to what already exists in US Part 97.

It would be easy enough to list band segments by emission type for modes already in use, and then in addition, specify limitations on necessary bandwidths for "other" modes not included on the list.  Even better than enumerated bandwiths for "other" modes would be specifications "not to exceed the bandwidths of" specific existing modes, including CW, RTTY, SSB and AM.

I bet you might be able to get ARRL to agree on your proposal, if the necessary bandwidth "number" was also listed for the more common modes already in general use. The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 18, 2007, 07:42:26 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Dec 18, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: Ad Hoc Region 2 HF panel
To: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ"
Cc: "Mark A. Weiss"


Dave,

I just had a disappointing conversation with Mark Weiss, who led the
ARRL's ad hoc panel on Region 2 HF planning ahead of the talks in
Brazil.

He earlier was willing to describe for me how the panel sorted out
conflicts over frequency use, but had not replied to my follow up
question regarding enumerated bandwidths.

Tonight, he said "candidly, I don't really feel comfortable discussing
this," saying he felt as if he were being cross-examined. His career
as a judge may have sensitized him to direct questioning, and my
career as a reporter certainly makes my questions concise.

Can you help shed light on the basis for Region 1's use of enumerated
bandwidths, that Weiss says was indeed considered as they concluded
such numbers could be adapted for use in Region 2? I would be happy if
you could simply authorize him to discuss his work more fully.

Thanks,

Paul



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: w3jn on December 18, 2007, 07:53:04 PM


I bet you might be able to get ARRL to agree on your proposal, if the necessary bandwidth "number" was also listed for the more common modes already in general use. The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.

Nobody has EVER been able to explain to me how this "number" is calculated, figured, ciphered, measured, and most importantly, understood by your typical Hammy Hambone.  Until that happens, this whole bandplan thing (as well as pet ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposals - past, present, and/or future) is a worthless exercise.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 18, 2007, 07:56:31 PM
Right, an often thought of Idea for a Problem that doesn't Exist.

I never understood that.


Why does everything Have to be Micro-Regulated...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 18, 2007, 11:31:26 PM
Quote
The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.

Who decides now? Once again, it's a solution without a problem.


Quote
Tonight, he said "candidly, I don't really feel comfortable discussing
this," saying he felt as if he were being cross-examined.

What a whiner. It's not a court, he didn't take an oath and no one will go to jail. These people will say anything to avoid answering legitimate questions. How sad. I thought we were dealing with adults.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 19, 2007, 04:40:52 AM
But it can be kinda scary.

Weiss also said the panel considered using generalized references instead of specific numbers, but could not recall why numbers, not characterizations, won their recommendation.

"Most of our work was early in the year, last year," he said, "I don't remember."


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 19, 2007, 05:13:38 AM
Well, Well, Well, Well,

A previous board member decides to step up to the plate...interesting..."who stands to gain and who stands to lose"...the age old strife we seek..."carefully Crafted Plan"..onto.. "the league knows which way the regulatory winds are blowing".....and finally...."it convened an outside committee of volunteer Experts"

 What is the response....All anybody ever asked was a "Chance" to take part and provide "Input" to the leagues considerations..............This is a Democracy we live in i believe.

 and the modal war continues....

 Dependency on the actions of a few who state representation of the mass is futile at best when consideration is only given to Closed proceedings...


How I would like to debate that gentleman on the flow of logic...Control the flow control the logic...just passing traffic.................


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 19, 2007, 10:39:56 AM
If he can't remember, it must not be that important. I'm sure they will move to strike the numbers next time. ::)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 19, 2007, 11:13:08 AM
But it can be kinda scary.

Weiss also said the panel considered using generalized references instead of specific numbers, but could not recall why numbers, not characterizations, won their recommendation.

"Most of our work was early in the year, last year," he said, "I don't remember."

It's amusing to see people in positions of public trust develop selective amnesia when put on the spot.  Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales... so the Weiss fellow, a former judge, is not surprising.  Maybe something about the workings of bureaucracy induces dementia.  Bizarre.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Ed/KB1HYS on December 19, 2007, 12:44:29 PM
The enumerated bandwidth figures should be eliminated from the band plans in all regions, and replaced with a "minimum bandwidth" clause similar to what already exists in US Part 97.

It would be easy enough to list band segments by emission type for modes already in use, and then in addition, specify limitations on necessary bandwidths for "other" modes not included on the list.  Even better than enumerated bandwiths for "other" modes would be specifications "not to exceed the bandwidths of" specific existing modes, including CW, RTTY, SSB and AM.

I bet you might be able to get ARRL to agree on your proposal, if the necessary bandwidth "number" was also listed for the more common modes already in general use. The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.

Ok, why not actually write Don's Idea up (with input of course) and submit our own proposal to the FCC (skip the ARRL angle, as I doubt they would listen).

 Write a "Band Width" reg that we can live with, that actualy makes sense,  and try to get it passed/accepted.  There is a LOT of smart folks who post here, so this could work.  Look at all the attention this thread has gotten.  I bet if we went to the other folks with issues with the bandwidth limitations (the PSK and other digi-modes that winlink trashes, and the ESSB guys) and got them on board early we could make it work.

It could be a "Pre-emptive Strike" to save us from some other folks Big Ideas...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 19, 2007, 12:58:03 PM
I like the one we already have.

Quote
97.307(a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 19, 2007, 01:45:09 PM
97.307(a) - Is good for me too.  This great law is Kryptonite to the ARRL apparently.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 19, 2007, 02:07:30 PM
Write a "Band Width" reg that we can live with, that actualy makes sense,  and try to get it passed/accepted.  There is a LOT of smart folks who post here, so this could work.  Look at all the attention this thread has gotten.  I bet if we went to the other folks with issues with the bandwidth limitations (the PSK and other digi-modes that winlink trashes, and the ESSB guys) and got them on board early we could make it work.

It could be a "Pre-emptive Strike" to save us from some other folks Big Ideas...

I like the one we already have.

Quote
97.307(a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.


The problem I see with  that is that we just might get what we asked for, but only after the FCC, in its infinite wisdom, has added its own "improvements" to the petition.

A good example of that is incentive licensing.  What the ARRL actually proposed circa 1963 was to return to the old classA/classB licensing system that existed before the mother of all "restructuring" acts, adopted in the early 50's, creating the Novice and Extra class, and granting Generals and above full amateur privileges.  With the explosive growth of amateur ranks in the 50's and early 60's, the increasing trend towards factory built rigs, and a perceived degradation of technical and operating skills, many amateurs including certain League officials thought that elimination of the class A restricted phone bands had been a mistake, and the incentive licensing petition was a request to bring it back.

This ignited a great debate within the amateur community that at times turned downright nasty, while at the same time, the great AM/SSB wars were fully raging.  The FCC sat on the petition for several years before adopting their "compromise" which didn't really please anyone, either the pro- and anti- people who had responded to the League petition.  Particularly egregious was the error the FCC made in not grandfathering existing Generals, thus taking away operating privileges that the majority of licensees already held.  The League got more than it bargained for, and to this day has never recovered from that mistake, but the FCC shares at least 50% of the blame for the fiasco that resulted.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 19, 2007, 04:42:24 PM
Waiting for an answer.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Dec 19, 2007
Subject: Region 2 band plan
To: "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)"

Reinaldo,

Sorry to have to come to you again for information, but the latest
question has to do with the planning ahead of the Brazil conference.
I at first thought the committee whose members did this advance work
was an ARRL function, but I was corrected by Dave Sumner that it
actually was an IARU committee.

That makes the question something I hope you can answer.

Below is my note to Dave.

Could you respond to me?

I also would be interested in learning if and when the details of the
Brazil Region 2 deliberations will be published or otherwise available
to me for review.

Thanks,

Paul WA3VJB
mobile xxx xxx 3885

~~~~~~

I just had a disappointing conversation with Mark Weiss,


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 20, 2007, 04:54:17 AM
After considerable reading of other forums,

This whole affair is a disappointment, i seriously doubt that anyone will be found to step forward. I'll never understand why "what is necessary and what isn't necessary" isn't defined and acted on without prejudice, then again to be part of the club is to keep your tongue to keep your Hat i would assume.

I'm still just a little short on one thought, the league promotes MFG equipment for sale, this equipment comes with adjustable bandwidth, type equipment is acceptable under FCC type acceptance..but the continual notion of a "Needed" limitation warrants an aggravating figure for standardization.

How much more two sided does it need to be...interesting.....




Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Jim KF2SY on December 20, 2007, 01:04:29 PM

Hmmmmm...
Me thinks somehow the IBOC (KAOS) gangsters could be behind this whole thang...

Agent 99



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on December 20, 2007, 01:16:45 PM
"That's terrible Chief. If IBOC is allowed to continue it will threaten the whole world."

Chief: " Your right, Max."
Max: "Just one thing I don't understand, Chief."
Chief:" What's that ?"
Max: " Just what is IBOC anyway ? "



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Jim KF2SY on December 20, 2007, 01:30:41 PM
Yep.
If you take letters from IBOC, ARRL, IARU and KAOS...
you get....
BLACK HELICOPTER
at least...

Agent  86


----Wishing you all the Merriest of Holidaze---- 8)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Steve - WB3HUZ on December 20, 2007, 04:08:37 PM
 :P


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 20, 2007, 05:58:14 PM
LOL..Gee Gads Gangster Spam....LOL...........................


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: stansub on December 23, 2007, 12:34:55 PM
Seems that 6kc bandwidth is reasonable?  If the AM or DSB signal is generated with a transmitter that has filters to limit the banwidth, then 6khz may be accomplished. For the amateurs using Home Made and/or converted AM Broadcast transmitters, could filters be installed to limit the bandwidth?

I hear some very good AM generated from late model transceivers and amplified. Their bandwidth is narrow, the audio good, not "East Coast Modulation", but HiFi enough for the Ham Bands.

I know that there has and will always be some problems with SSB and AM operators. What will the SSB people do when all communications go to a digital mode? 

Any chance that any plan will work for all amateurs?

Stan


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 23, 2007, 12:42:07 PM
Well not "all" amateurs, Stan.
No such plan could be crafted.

The use of specific bandwidth numbers has not been shown as a potentially better way to place modes/activities on the bands.

There has been no problem currently identified that would be improved or resolved by a bandwidth-based coordination scheme.

So it's not the numbers, it is the concept that dooms such a plan.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: wd8das on December 24, 2007, 11:47:45 AM
Stan wrote:

>Seems that 6kc bandwidth is reasonable? 

Widening the bandwidth numbers would reduce the pressure, but is not really the answer.  Then you have to define the shape of the response, and lay-out a "mask" into which the signal must fit, or be out of the specification. 

And since 95% of the hams won't be able to measure it properly anyhow, this will surely lead to lots of on-air and off-air finger pointing and arguing. 

And why go to this trouble anyway?  I've heard one reason expressed: the "bands are too crowded and we need to make sure no one is 'too wide' and not taking more than their fair share."  This is just not so - in my experience the bands are getting less and less crowded every day.  And that is a matter of concern for other reasons, but it is certainly not a reason we must all "go narrow."

Steve WD8DAS



Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 24, 2007, 12:25:48 PM
And since 95% of the hams won't be able to measure (bandwidth) properly anyhow...

Just like p.e.p.  95% of hams wouldn't even be able to describe in words exactly what it is, let alone properly measure it.

I recently overheard some re-tard on SSB, complaining about "wide" AM signals, tell his buddies about how the "absolutely narrowest" AM signal he has ever monitored on his ricebox was clearly audible as he tuned through at least 11 kc/s according to his digital readout.  I have had numerous complaints over the years about my carrier being wide - "you can hear the heterodyne squeal over about 4 kc/s on the dial".  They can't comprehend the fact that the apparent width of a signal on a receiver is the sum of the width of the receiver pass-band plus the bandwidth of the signal, and that even the best selectivity filters have some slope at the edge of the pass-band. That "11 kc wide" AM signal was probably more like 7 kc/s wide in real bandwidth.

Apparently they never bother to check out the apparent bandwidths of SSB signals.  That's not what they want to complain about.

If a numerical bandwidth limit, no matter how generous for AM, were ever enacted, we would have to constantly contend with wannabe "radio cops" and cry babies lacking a clue of what they were talking about.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 24, 2007, 12:40:04 PM
What bands are too crowded?


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 24, 2007, 01:29:42 PM
Seems that 6kc bandwidth is reasonable?  If the AM or DSB signal is generated with a transmitter that has filters to limit the banwidth, then 6khz may be accomplished. For the amateurs using Home Made and/or converted AM Broadcast transmitters, could filters be installed to limit the bandwidth?

I hear some very good AM generated from late model transceivers and amplified. Their bandwidth is narrow, the audio good, not "East Coast Modulation", but HiFi enough for the Ham Bands.

I know that there has and will always be some problems with SSB and AM operators. What will the SSB people do when all communications go to a digital mode? 

Any chance that any plan will work for all amateurs?

Stan


 Hi Stan,

 Now see you just mentioned a problem, there will always be some head banging..if some people would learn to stay out of a guys bandpass,, then..No Problem..Knowing Full well what AM does take for room, add a coupla KC's for space then whoola...

 But today there are some ops that feel OK I'll move in just above or below a coupla Kc's from center slot and sit an Complain...Now there's a problem.. what is and what isn't perceived as a problem as apposed to what is acted on in causing a problem...

 Obviously when an AM op comes on, and as most do from my observations they take great interest in space...before firing, I've watched this happen many times..

 Now I'm putting my Call on the line here for all this, and the answer isn't to be found in laying down more rules, no, actually it is in operator presence and actions taken on Band with ones own equipment...learn your receiver, learn what is and isn't possible, now I'm not directing this directly at you or anyone present here but it's getting at the truth...that's important, I haven't heard AM all the way up and down 80 meters in a long time, or any band for that matter,..Now everybody has to take a turn and not everyday is it loaded up with AM...space is at a premium, I agree, but operator practice is in question here and that is the situation to be looked at.


 I also feel that some of these net practices need a good looking over and the frequency squatting needs some attending to... maybe a time limit..[[add edit( at premium operating hours)]]..would be behooving in some of these matters....you have x amount of time get your work done and then move on...it gives way for the next guy....just a thought I've been kicking around to relieve some tension....

my very best 73 om jack ka3zlr.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 24, 2007, 01:58:44 PM
The last thing we need as a legal "time limit" for QSO's.  I often, particularly late at night, engage in QSO's that run for hours.  We just need to remain aware of our own channel width and consider adjacent frequency QSO's already in progress when we fire up.  No-one is guaranteed a clear channel.  Amateur radio operates on an interference-expected basis.

Part 97 defines this as "good amateur practice".  That's all the regulation we need.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 24, 2007, 02:02:48 PM
The last thing we need as a legal "time limit" for QSO's.  I often, particularly late at night, engage in QSO's that run for hours.  We just need to remain aware of our own channel width and consider adjacent frequency QSO's already in progress when we fire up.  No-one is guaranteed a clear channel.  Amateur radio operates on an interference-expected basis.

Part 97 defines this as "good amateur practice".  That's all the regulation we need.


To be added into Good Amateur practice Donny.. not a rule....at premium operating hours....when does most of the head bashing happen...Prime time...we are at what part of the cycle...bottom...logically looking at it... it is time sensitive...later on at night...that's different...it's better than 2.7Kc law on demand...


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Tom WA3KLR on December 24, 2007, 03:08:35 PM
The rule should probably say "good Amateur practice" rather than "good amateur practice"; "good amateur" practice being an oxymoron.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: ka3zlr on December 24, 2007, 04:24:55 PM
Exactly Gentlemen,

 The greatest strength of this forum is the ability to discuss these ideas without prejudice and Blindly following a system that excludes the input from concerned operators.



 

 


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 26, 2007, 05:28:14 PM
Now making this post and thread Un-sticky.

To find it in the future, just do a search for IARU.

Thanks for participating.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 26, 2007, 06:26:14 PM
Very effective. Beats the hell out of the old days of dead-tree newsletters and monthly rags delivered via snail mail.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: Pete, WA2CWA on December 26, 2007, 08:53:14 PM
And, we set some records with the thread!


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: WD8BIL on December 27, 2007, 07:39:35 AM
Only because it wasn't limited or KILLED after 20 pages  >:( >:( ???

Long live Ted Nugent !!!

 Backstraps baby !!  (http://www.tednugent.com/)


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: KF1Z on December 27, 2007, 08:57:38 AM
Now making this post and thread Un-sticky.

To find it in the future, just do a search for IARU.

Thanks for participating.

Oh... giving up so soon?

Sure we could make 40 pages if we try!!



 :P


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 27, 2007, 09:03:05 AM
Never giving up !

Additional tactics and strategies are on the way.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Jim KF2SY on December 31, 2007, 01:57:11 PM

Some very good points brought up in this thread...
It is always a prudent thing to cast a wary eye on dealings of the ARRL and IARU
with respect to AM.  In these times it often seems like the inmates are running the asylum.  Especially across the pond, where the Greenies have become a religion.
Just look at the ROHS debacle.  Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On a lighter note...
I think this thread could make 40 pages, easy.
Shirley this won't be the last post...

 ;D
Happy New Year


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: W1IA on December 31, 2007, 04:13:38 PM
If nothing else it has brought focus on the mode and the increasing interest of the mode. It has become apparent that there is an increasing number of A.M. operators showing up on the band.

The interest in the old mode has created a renewed interest in building and restoring old transmitters. Many people (myself included) found that the hobby had stagnated. How many 59 slam bam's can a person take before realizing the futility and utter boredom you get from running a plastic radio.

Class-E  designs make it possible for the average joe to build a decent transmitter for relatively low money. The biggest benefit was the education and friendships the were forged from joining the wonderful fraternity of A.M. operators and builders.

Another benefit was immersing myself into antenna designs using EZNEC. Since most AM'rs are at a power disadvantage maximizing antenna designs becomes paramount to survival on 75 at night.

The supposed band crowding issue is a mute point as most AM'rs end up in small groups dotted amongst the band. I expect the real impact of the IARU's foolishness will
be the fallout of ignorant operators claiming the IARU band proposal as law. Dollars to donuts it will start tomorrow.


Brent W1IA


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 31, 2007, 04:28:05 PM

The supposed band crowding issue is a moot point as most AM'rs end up in small groups dotted amongst the band. I expect the real impact of the IARU's foolishness will be the fallout of ignorant operators claiming the IARU band proposal as law. Dollars to donuts it will start tomorrow.

That's why we need to make it a  special point starting at midnight to-night local time, to  show a massive AM presence OUTSIDE the IARU AM windows,  on 3625-3875, and on as many separate frequencies as possible throughout 160.  Continue this operation through the coming weekend.  Let this be an educational exercise for the benefit of the rest of the amateur radio community.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: WA3VJB on December 31, 2007, 04:32:06 PM
The follow-through to Don's suggestion will be to make note of times, frequencies and call signs of anyone trying to "enforce" the IARU plan against us.

It may take more than just next week, because I'm skeptical there are very many people who give a szht. The known detractors probably won't take the chance since we expect it from them.

Nonetheless, keeping documentation becomes part of the basis to argue for getting rid of specific bandwidths in Region 2, precluding them in Region 3, and possibly getting rid of them in the earlier Region 1, on which the Region 2 plan is reputedly based.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operatio
Post by: k4kyv on December 31, 2007, 04:39:26 PM
It may take more than just next week, because I'm skeptical there are very many people who give a szht. The known detractors probably won't take the chance since we expect it from them.

And they know we expect it from them, because they monitor this board, as well as subscribe to the AM Reflector.  I recall Brian kicked one off a few months ago because he began posting derisive remarks about certain AM operators.


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: AF9J on December 31, 2007, 06:52:59 PM
I'm all set to go guys,

I don't go out for New Yearrs Eve anymore (unless I'm doing a gig), so I'm game for operating on the low end of 75, since I have the VFO behaving itself.

73,
Ellen - AF9J


Title: Re: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.
Post by: Bill, KD0HG on December 31, 2007, 07:03:16 PM