The AM Forum

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.

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/


(emphasis mine)

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

  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!

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

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

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

- - - - - -

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:


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

 

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.

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

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. 

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.

Who are "you guys"?

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

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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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)

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

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 !!

If Man causes global warming, Women will blame him.................... klc

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."

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

Ah yes Pete, we will. But by means of our own choosing........ I hope.

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.

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

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.

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 :


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

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.

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/).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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. :)

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.

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.     

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.

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.


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

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)

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.

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 :)

I filed comments on both RM-11305 and -11306.

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.

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.

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.

Tom said:
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:
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) :'(

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.

What about SPAR??

"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!)

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

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....

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.


Scroll down to the 5th paragraph.

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

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.

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

Isn't that oxyMORONic ??

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.

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. 

Ya, like a lot of things

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.   

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

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

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

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.

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.

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
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Joe,

Good to hear from you. 

Are you home and free for a telephonium contact?

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

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?

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.        

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

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.)

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".

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.

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.

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

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?

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.


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.

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!

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.

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
>
>

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.

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

Emphasis added.

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

With or without my preamp on ? 8)

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?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

This was down at the end of one of Tom's posts, above.

---

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.

K1ZZ wrote, (as quoted from letter):
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

Yeah, he looks like a player.

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.

 Now VJB is playing with Photoshop..................   klc

Ramon Santoyo XE1KK of Mexico City is the new IARU Region 2 Secretary.

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

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 ?

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

   "  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

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

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

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


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

Good quote Mack!

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

Harbinger of things to come?


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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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     
   

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.
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.

There's a nasty exploit out for Adobe Reader. Suggest you download the latest version or patch ASAP. Or use a different readder.

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)

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.

---

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.

NU9N AM & ESSB Hi Fi audio news editorial: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan November 2007

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

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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Great work Tom. Much appreciated. I find it strange that a band plan would be worked up anf then not submitted or presented. Hmmm...



LOL

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

Kill it n' grill it !!!

Check this out Wigman !!

Can you say HIJACK !!!

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...”.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

~~~~~~~~

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".

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.

"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".

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".

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

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

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

A really excellent letter, Ellen.  Nice job...  Steve

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

Good Going! Did someone say "safety in numbers"? Let's keep the pressure on!

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

It's not clear to me how defending AM operation would be 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.

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..)

Interesting.  Why don't you post a copy here so others outside the central division  could see it?

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.

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

Thanks Jack for posting, I will use a few nuggets in there for some imminent mailouts.

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

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

- - - - - - - - - -

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  

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

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

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

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.

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

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!

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  >:( >:(

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/)

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:


I would submit this "bandplan", on several levels, violates at least partially their mission statement - notably items 1,3,5,6, and 8.

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.

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.

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:
 

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.

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?


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.

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.


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.

One has to remember the AM'er who "helped" fight this with the FCC's J.J.


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.

True, but that wasn't the point.


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.


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.

Of course, you don't have to look too far to see the same thing within the amateur ranks either.

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.


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?

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!

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.


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.

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?

Next one, I believe, is 2011. You can confirm that on the ITU page.


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.


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.

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.

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

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.

And then they wonder why most amateurs aren't members.

>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

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

 

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

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....

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.

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.

Darn: I only have 4 ;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.

No stretch. It would effectively end contests, which is the point. :D

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
>

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

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.

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


- - - - - - - - -

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

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

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.

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!!

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.

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?

 

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.

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"

Pete

 Just what are you defending here anyways? Are you in agreement with the  proposed restrictions AM or otherwise?

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:


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

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.




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.



Why not apologize to everyone, since you clearly offended more than one person?




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.



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.



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.





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!




You've just verified your technical incompetence.




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--


==





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.




And thus, the skepticism by those who don't.




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.

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".

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.

All the more reason to fight it now.

^^^  And fight every quasi-official document that proposes same to the ITU or any other official body.


^^  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.

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 

.

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

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.


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?

You did not answer the question Gary asked.


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.

>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

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.

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.

It's interesting to see the IARU claims to be open about their proceeding with


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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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

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

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

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)

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?"

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.

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:

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.

Why have any number when the current reg works just fine?

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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...

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.



Paul

You're right Pete, it's probably best that you stay out of it.

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.

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:
   
Regards
Q, W1QWT

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.

Thanks Mack, I initially got that from Mexico's representative at the IARU Region 2, a good guy and helpful to us.

---

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

- - - - - - - - -

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


- - - - - - - - - - -

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.

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?

Maybe Joel should read W9GIG's words.

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

- - - - - - - - -

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 ?

Hilarious. Trapped by his own words. :D

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.

 R/E the preamble, I guess he doesn't want " ... to impose voluntary restrictions on ... " himself .... ..

klc

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

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.

For what it's worth, I have added my two cents.  I sent my comments direct to the Region 2 IARU folks. 

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

---

---------- 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.

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!

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.

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

The word is slowly getting out.....  From the Troy (NY) ARA newsletter,


http://www.n2ty.org/newsletter/tn1007.pdf


klc

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:


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".

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

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.

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.

---------- 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

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   

 

From ARRL Bulletin 8 ARLB008 1/20/98

From FCC 04-79 which was the R&O for 04-140 released April 15th 2004.
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.

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/