The AM Forum

From the ARRL web site, dated March 4, 2010:

"The International Amateur Radio Region 2 (IARU R2)conference -- held later this year in El Salvador -- brings together delegations from the national Amateur Radio Societies in the Western Hemisphere. One of the topics on the agenda will be the Region 2 HF band plan. This band plan is "harmonized with" -- spectrum management-speak for "very similar to" -- the IARU Region 1 and Region 3 band plans.

A new, more transparent procedure will be followed this year for considering possible changes to the Region 2 band plan. The ARRL is cooperating with this procedure by inviting input to be sent to the ARRL Board of Directors' Band Planning Committee. The committee will review the existing Region 2 band plan, consider input from the amateur community and make recommendations to the ARRL Board for submission to IARU Region 2.

The inadvertent omission of the AM center of activity frequency (calling frequency) -- 3.885 MHz on 80 meters -- has already been noted, and this will be one of the recommended revisions.

The deadline line set by Region 2 for gathering input and formulating recommendations is rather short. Amateurs who would like to submit input should take the following steps:"

To see the steps, and read the complete text of this post, go here:
http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2010/03/04/11374/?nc=1

Another exciting time is coming!  :D

I haven't taken the time to read the article yet, but two things immediately come to mind.  

One, the bandwidth issue.  The Region 1 plan specifically accommodates AM on all phone segments despite the nominal maximum bandwidths posted in the chart. This is conspicuously missing from the current Region 2 plan.

Two, 40m. Although this would take FCC action to correct in the USA, phone/cw segregation should be more closely aligned with that of the other regions.  Specifically, in light of the removal of (most) broadcast stations from 7100-7200, the N. American band plan should allow phone down at least to 7100 kHz. (Most other Region 2 countries are already operating phone well below 7100 anyway).

This would apply immediately to Canada, Mexico and other countries in the Americas, since nearly every country in the world, except for the U.S., long ago phased out government-mandated subbands.

It is ridiculous that 25% of the newly-vacated frequencies are off limits to US phone operators, yet at best there may be no more than a half dozen or so CW/RTTY/data QSO's on 7100-7125 at any given moment, and 7060-7100 is under-used by U.S. non-phone ops as well.

Current Region 1 Band Plan:
http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=175&Itemid=127

Region 3 Band Plan:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-3-hf-bandplan.pdf

Do not accept their anonymous email address as the only destination for your concerns.

As of July 2009, here are the "members" of the League's Band Planning Committee.

None of the participants has faced any published criteria to have been named to the panel. As such, the basis of their qualifications to serve is not known.

Vice President Rick Roderick - K5UR Chair
Director Tom Frenaye - K1KI
Director Dick Norton - N6AA
Mr. Steve Ford - WB8IMY
Mr. Chuck Skolaut - K0BOG

Zombie legislation... it keeps coming back from the dead.

What's wrong with what we've got?   

It's a solution in search of a problem.

I'll read it tomorrow at work, and probably respond to it. If it's like most of the crap going on these days, it's going to favor the digital modes and give short shrift to the traditional modes. Especially AM.

We just got a request to respond to a survey here in TX wanting to know how we felt about them taking away some of the simplex 2 meter freqs to give them to D-STAR. If they keep track of the call sign, email address and phone numbers that they said were optional, but I gave them anyway, I'm probably not welcome at any of the TX VHF Society meetings. I explained that D-STAR completely ignores the amateur history of being totally independent of any infrastructure and instead depends on a very fragile infrastructure -- the Internet -- and pointed out what happened in Silicon Valley CA. Then I pointed out that D-STAR is outrageously over-priced and eliminates most hams from its over-rated system.

We've been dealing with a big push here in TX for D-STAR, and the more they push, the more I push back. I refuse to be ramrodded into some new digital mode that's dependent on the Internet, just because it's stylish. The old ham ways, depending only on ourselves, have worked well for a very long time. Why change them just because some eejit came up with a new digital mode?

</ anti-digital rant>

73,
ldb
K5WLF

Doesn't really make much difference what "qualifications" they have, or don't have. They are the members of the band planning committee and as such will have the ear of the ARRL Board. As stated in the initial post, "Region 2 HF band plan. This band plan is "harmonized with" -- spectrum management-speak for "very similar to" -- the IARU Region 1 and Region 3 band plans", any changes to the IARU Region 2 band plan should include both domestic U. S. AM calling frequencies and any internationally identified AM calling frequencies since there are a number of countries in Region 1 and 3 that don't have access to the same frequency allocations that are available to U. S. amateurs.

Of course, any early-on P&M about "qualifications" only serves to provide fodder later on, if one doesn't embrace or agree with the end result.

I looked at the Region 2 BP and they sure mentioned SSB a lot but the only mention of AM pertained to one or two windows or calling frequencies. 

There are no windows. The current IARU Region 2 band plan lists the 40 meter AM calling frequency as 7275 which doesn't agree with the ARRL's band plan nor to the 40 meter AM operating habits over the past 20 plus years.

Yes. the attitude in Newington that Phone is only SSB and AM is a specialty mode- and both are obsolete compared to the new holy grail - DIGITAL modes.

Frankly any time I hear that those folks in CT are up to something I start to worry, but before I get to torqued up I'll have to see what happens. 

Although I still stick by my original assertion, that there is no sound reason for to overhaul our band plan just so we can be the same as everyone else <bleh> and this whole digital mode vs voice or what ever is over blown and is just going to become another version of the SSB/AM wars of yesteryear (or yesterday if you're listening to 75meters :) )   

"our band plan"  ???

Here is the directory of countries that fall under the IARU Region 2 band plan:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/directory/

All I can say is remember the BS the last time this "group" convened to better our hobby.

When one is a memeber of a group that jointly owns something, the "our" is correct. (ie: our world).  So in this context all of the nations in Region 2 may clam the band plan as "ours".  Especially since, in theory, every member has a say in the plan through the respective organizations that represent them.

Using "their" in this context would imply that it was foisted upon us by an oustide entity. (ie: the settlers applied "their" laws to the native tribes).   

In retrospect, I think you are correct Pete. It will be Their band plan regardless.

In practice, the people on the ARRL Board do not have the final say as to what is ultimately placed on the table at these IARU band planning festivals.  So yes, perhaps "qualifications" of those who are on the advisory panel are secondary.

If the ARRL staffer representing U.S. licensees at the actual meeting wishes to place his own proposal on the table, it can and has been accepted by the international group as "representative" of what U.S. licensees want.

Concentrating that much power in one individual is a hole in the system of "representation" by a member society in the IARU.

ARRL CEO Dave Sumner will confirm to anyone this is exactly what former League staffer Paul Rinaldo did at the previous Region 2 conference in Brazil.  Hint: Ask about the unrelated document Rinaldo pulled out of his pocket with suggested bandwidth specifications. Sumner sent me a copy of it.

No one has been able to provide documentation of the agenda and parameters of the previous "ad hoc" ARRL Band Planning Committee. Maybe that's the circumstance they're trying to fix with references to being "more transparent," eh ?

For example, there is no record to suggest Rinaldo had the authorization to propose enumerated bandwidth specifications, an act that contradicted the wishes of U.S. licensees.

It's nice that League people this time are soliciting input, and it's encouraging that they may be more public about exactly what will be taken to the table in El Salvador.

But let's see if they can actually avoid the kind of shenanigans Rinaldo caused the last time -- and the anti-AM result of those actions that League people now apparently wish to repair.

Here's my feedback on the present Region 2 bandplan.
I submitted it to  bandplan2010@arrl.org  as was requested...

- - - - - - - - - - -
ARRL -

Feedback on IARU Region 2 bandplan

The actual need for bandplans has not been established, but if we
accept that one is desired, a bandplan should recommend *modes* for
segments, not signal bandwidths.  Most hams know what mode they are
running, but few really know the bandwidths involved.

Very few hams have the knowledge, skills, or test equipment to measure
occupied bandwidth anyway, so its use in a bandplan is a meaningless
standard.  The common practice of tuning a communications receiver
across a signal is NOT how to measure occupied bandwidth and
will produce misleading results.

The present Region 2 bandplan's bandwidth limitation to 2700 Hz in most
phone and image segments is especially inappropriate.  It unnecessarily
excludes some modes, particularly the DSB AM mode which is growing in
popularity.  I am VERY much against such limits - tight regulation and
restrictions like these goes completely against the experimental and
innovative aspects of ham radio.

I feel 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.  I think it is vital to
avoid tight restriction and limitation which could hinder our future
options.  We should 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 Johnston, WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - - - -

Remember in 2007- 2008 when the ARRL backed down from
their attempt to get FCC regulation by bandwidth?
 
At that time we heard a League official state
that "we needn't expect a further effort by the ARRL to get
bandwidth controls into FCC rules for at least two years - not
until the League had a chance to "educate" the members
and other amateurs on the matter and "get them on-board".
 
Now in early 2010 that amount of time has passed and the
IARU plan is under review - interesting.
 
Steve WD8DAS
 

You're right Steve, the people at the ARRL retreated from their effort at the FCC when confronted with overwhelming opposition filed against their proposed scheme for segregation-by-bandwidth.  

And you're also correct in observing they never quite accepted the popular sentiment rejecting their scheme. Instead they portrayed the opposition as uninformed or confused, and that the League's scheme had been misinterpreted.

Certain League people also coughed up a dose of accusatory hyperbole thrown against active, concerned licensees who had dared to push back.

Rinaldo is gone now.  This invitation to comment may prove more sincere than the one preceding the ARRL Board's decision to file their threatened segregation-by-bandwidth proposal at the FCC, where the club ultimately got the hard spanking they deserved for ignoring what their subscribers had told them, at their own request.

Let's hope they listen this time.

Howdy,  :)

 I've always looked at it like The way Power is looked on...

 What is and isn't necessary to make, break or continue a Gud Quality QSO..


2700hz, it's like......Squeeze it in there boy.....LOL..we're not concerned with what is comfortable to both operators in a contact....if room is or isn't at a premium, there's the dependency.

 Oh well... just more back slapping, Job well done on the Bandwidth Issue, an get more No Net Nets going to squeeze more operators into non-existence.

73
Jack.

I see no point in dredging up past activities that are over and done with other then perceived personal "feel-good" stroking.  All three IARU Regions have band plans that include recommended maximum bandwidth notations. Some countries don't have an equivalent "FCC" and thus use the IARU band plans as their official guide. We are fortunate to have the FCC shape our amateur radio do's and don'ts with Part 97. Remember, at the IARU meetings, the U. S., represented by the ARRL, only has one vote. Even if the U. S. backs away from any band plan changes with a "no" vote, a majority of "yes" votes will make the change.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Those_who_ignore_history_are_bound_to_repeat_it

Dave, you beat me to the punch on that one! However I like it as stated "Those who ignore history are CONDEMNED to repeat it!"

Review of past sneakiness is important so that new people know what has been done before and become vigilant.   The more people in ARRL-Watch mode the better.   For example, multiple ARRL Unofficial Observers can search the FCC ECFS on a regular basis, looking for hidden documents detailing quiet FCC-ARRL activities that might be detrimental to AM activity.

I would suggest you broaden your search criteria beyond ARRL. Over the years there have been a number of proposals submitted to the FCC by individuals or groups that would have been considered detrimental to AM and/or amateur radio activities. I also seriously doubt the ARRL is on the inside tract with the FCC these days. Please keep us informed of your findings of any black-robed gangster activities that might be detrimental to AM activity.

Yea,... an their little Dog too... ;D

Pete, Black Robed Gangstas......I thought we were the only Gangstas...LOL


73 Pete.

Jack.

In addition to sending my comments on the Region 2 bandplan to the feedback email address provided, I also wrote directly to League officials.  This afternoon I received a reply from the President, Kay N3KN.
 
- - - - - - - -
Thank you for your comments. The Region 2 band plan accommodates DSB AM operation. For example, if you look at the segment 7100 - 7130, you will see a asterisk by the 2700 bandwidth. Then scroll to the bottom of the entire chart to find the reference for that asterisk, which says, "DSB AM allowed in this segment with a maximum bandwidth of 6 kHz." The omission of the AM calling frequency on 80 meters was accidental and will be remedied in
the revision.
 
The Region 2 band plan is not part of the FCC's Rules and has no regulatory effect upon us in the USA. The current version does not and the revised version will not have any adverse effect upon your enjoyment of the Amateur bands using the modes you and your friends prefer.
 
Kay N3KN
- - - - - - - -
 
I replied...
 
- - - - - - - -
 
Kay -
 
Thank you for your reply. Your response doesn't really address my concerns, as I'm not calling for some sort of special "exception" for certain modes. Sounds like you've prepared well for complaints from the AM community, but I question the whole business of segregation by bandwidth.
 
How many hams do you know that can measure occupied bandwidth in their shack? Can you?
 
Or do you rely upon the type of mode (CW, computer, voice, etc) to decide where best to operate? I'm betting that you, like 99% of hams, are not measuring their bandwidth but instead making assumptions based on modes-compatibility.
 
Steve WD8DAS
 
sbjohnston@aol.com
http://www.wd8das.net/
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio is your best entertainment value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

Nice exchange, Steve.

As long as ARRL people are trotting out the IARU Region 2 Band Plan, they should probably figure out how to settle a contradiction within their own group's published material.

The magazine's web page says:

It would be inappropriate to incorporate Region 2 band plans into the FCC rules, and the ARRL has no plan to petition the FCC to do so.

But the IARU Region 2 Band Plan says:

It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely with their radio amateur communities.

Further response from the ARRL President: 

Hi Steve,
In the USA we are regulated by the FCC's Rules, not by this band plan. The
Region 2 band plan cannot require any licensee in the USA to measure
occupied bandwidth for any mode of operation, because it has no regulatory
force in this country. The Region 2 band plan does not even refer to
measurement of occupied bandwidth. Please don't over-react to the bandwidth
column. It does not obligate American hams to make any technical
measurements and imposes no burden on us. It is information that is desired
by Amateurs in some other countries, and that's all.
73 - Kay N3KN

My further response to the ARRL President:

- - - - - - -
Kay wrote:

>The Region 2 band plan does not even refer to
>measurement of occupied bandwidth.

What is the point of assigning a maximum bandwidth to the various band
segments if it is not a measured bandwidth?  A parallel example:  A
speed limit sign on the side of the highway is meant to be used in
combination with the speedometer in your car.  If automobiles were not
equipped with speedometers, would speed limit signs be posted?

Assigning a max bandwidth will invariably result in claims that someone
is "wider" than the allowed maximum. Thus my earlier concern about
creating unnecessary stress and contention among amateurs.

>Please don't over-react to the bandwidth column.

Does the ARRL want my feedback, or not?  In your first email reply you
seemed to be trying to convince me I'm wrong, and now you are
suggesting that I am "over-reacting" and shouldn't worry.   Why do you
feel to you have "defend" the IARU Region 2 bandplan and argue in
support of the present plan?  I thought it was open to discussion.

> It does not obligate American hams

If the IARU Region 2 bandplan means nothing to American hams, why, in
fact, is the ARRL even working on it?  Why ask members for their
feedback on the bandplan?  It is the *American* Radio Relay League,
after all.   If, on the other hand, the ARRL has a significant play in
the Region 2 bandplan, then as a member of the League I would think
that my views would be welcomed - not rejected out of hand as wrong.

Steve WD8DAS

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio is your best entertainment value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

- - - - - - -

Like I said over on the other medium Steve, they are nothing more than a bunch of ego-ists, parading about stating their self-importance by attending a 'hemispherical meeting'.

suggested -  "To offer for consideration or action; propose"
And, the ARRL says - " has no plan to petition the FCC to do so"

Seems clear, reasonable, and to the point.

Of course, you may want to petition all the other member countries in Region 2 to see how much of the current Region 2 band plan they already follow or plan to follow. You might also want to review the amateur rules and regulations of another Region 2 country (Bermuda). You probably wouldn't have much fun operating AM there without major equipment mods.

Pete said:

Then why even participate?????  ???

Conversely, check out this post from over on the DigitalRadio forum due to a bunch of noise about some digital mode being limited due to bandwidth issues and not being documented as a legal mode:

> Following the recent discussions about the US license restrictions I
> was looking through the archive of QST mags at www.arrl.org
>
> On April 22, 1976 the FCC introduced Docket 20777, the QST report
> (page June 1976) says
>
> "Rather than further complicate the present rules," the Commission
> said, "with additional provisions to accomodate the petitioners'
> requests, we are herein proposing to delete all references to specific
> emission types in Part 97 of the Rules. "We propose, instead," the
> Commission continued, "to replace the present provisions with
> limitations on the permissible bandwidth which an amateur signal may
> occupy in the various amateur frequency bands. Within the authorised
> limitations any emission would be permitted."
>
> It would seem that deletion of emission types from Part 97 is exactly
> what is needed now to permit experimentation. Perhaps the FCC should
> be asked to re-introduce Docket 20777
>
> Trevor

Duh! They're a member of the IARU. And, would you really want the the IARU to set International suggested guidelines/band plans, etc. without their participation.

The problem, like with the ARRL bandwidth proposal, is that it's a one-size-fits-all approach.  Like the present power limit bullshit.

20777 was touted by the FCC as "deregulation" (that word was in the title of the docket notice), but it would have outlawed AM on all amateur frequencies below 28 mHz, as well fast-scan TV in the 420-450 mHz band. George Orwell would have been proud.

There is be no need to eliminate or impose new restrictions on legacy modes, or to mandate specific enumerated bandwidth limits, in order to accommodate emission types not specifically provided for.  "Further complicating" the rules could be avoided by adding a simple footnote to the existing emissions tables that, "in addition to the emission types listed above, operators may transmit unspecified emission types whose necessary bandwidths do not exceed those of the specific emission types listed".

It was reported that Johnny Johnston "could not understand" why there was so much opposition to Docket 20777. He was quoted as P&M'ing at a radio club meeting or hamfest forum, "We had a good proposal. It was shot down by a few hams who want to keep on using the same transmitters they have had for 25 years".

In a word, yes. The ARRL is zero value added to the process.

Pete said:
Duh! Why waste the time if anything you do has no relevance to your country? Duh!

Since when did the ARRL ever give a flying rat's ass about what we think?

Sure, occasionally they go through the motions but the decision(s) have already been made. The latest great example being the proposed FM narrowbanding debacle. That should be a goldmine to the manufacturers/QST advertisers. There wasn't any input solicited from the knowlegable ARRL members and/or repeater sponsors. Repeater sponsors have a significant investment in both money and time with their repeaters. I know of one high profile repeater that will not be forced to change over and split its clear frequency so some little person can put an unused flea bag garage repeater on thanks to ARRL.

 I'm a dues paying member - since 1967 - as well as a repeater sponsor so I feel I have the right to complain. They can all go to hades as far as I'm concerned.

Kay Craigie is a woman climbing the ladder and hasn't a clue!  She ought to be saving the whales or something.

Newington seems to be following the lead of Washington, DC.

The problem with listening to the consituents is that there is no money in it.
Washington, Newington, doesn't matter, same problem same effect. 

Within the past several days I heard the statement to the effect of: "They don't govern, they rule." It was directed at current politicians but seems to be equally applicable to the ARRL.

Fred said:
Now that speaks volumes!

Things that are supposed to be unbiquitous, yet add vulnerability layers to critical mission functions, are not looked well upon as primary resources.

Maybe if the 'powers that be' kill off enough analog repeaters, they think to drive/force users to the obtuse digital standard and thereby generate revenue on the backs of the communicators.

The main complaint about stealing slots from established repeaters.  In some areas, like Dallas, the place is flush with them, but eacxh group has as much right to the slots as anyone else. And how will it be decided which ones get axed in favor of the D-Star system? Follow the money..

I smell silicon and money boiling in a cauldron of snake oil.

A few years ago, it was the winlink2000/pactor III thing.
How heavily the advertising dollars did flow, from that patentholder and its technology licencees to the ARRL in those days.. 
The ham 'community' opposition to letting the robots fire up anywhere on the band made itself known to the FCC. The FCC did listen, and has ruled "no" to what the ARRL has pushed in the past.

As for the segregate -by-bandwidth issue, that was fought before and defeated. Maybe it is different now, but I would like to see AM requirements protected. A comment citing non-ignorable sources as to necessary bandwidth was used last time. In the end the FCC ruled that no changes to the rules were needed for bandwidth. The ARRL also ignores several modes in their previous comments. I realize this time is somewhat different but the arguments against statutory bandwidth limitations still hold.

History can repeat. The ham 'community' should make comments to the FCC and explain why any or all of it is a bad idea from many standpoints:
- pushed by money interests,
- not what the majority want,
- techncial issues,
- user cost burden,
- multiple points of failure,
- national security risk (Ur interwebz is downz, sir or madam! Pleez calls ur supurt teem in bombai.),
- general risk to the rules (hacking, criminals using the system to transmit data, etc),
- rights or desire of the repeater owners (clubs etc) to keep their slots,
- ease of continuing public service that is -inclusive- to all

The best effect might be for any commenter to make a separate comment for each "change" they do not like.

comment 1. D-star issues
comment 2. segregation by bandwidth
comment 3. imposed bandwidth limits
comment 4. ?

does the spectre of abolished modes appear again? ARRL wanted to do away with ISB before.

I hate this kind of mess. Sorry.

TO: Band Planning Panel:

Vice President Rick Roderick - K5UR Chair
Director Tom Frenaye - K1KI
Director Dick Norton - N6AA
Mr. Steve Ford - WB8IMY
Mr. Chuck Skolaut - K0BOG
-----------
RESPONSE TO INVITATION FOR INPUT as part of the XVII Session of the IARU Region 2 General Assembly, taking place in Salinitas, Sonsonate, El Salvador from October 4 to 8, 2010.

\\\

As you repair and improve the IARU Region 2 Band Plan, please directly address and specifically accommodate the mode of AM in the layout of activities throughout HF.

For discussion, I offer a brief review of what contributed to the problems caused at a previous conference in Brazil by your former employee Paul Rinaldo when he unilaterally, and without published Board authority, recommended adding enumerated bandwidths to the voluntary IARU Region 2 plan during discussions at the time.

Let me start by succinctly recommending that you:

Remove from the Region 2 band plan the enumerated bandwidth specification for the mode of AM in all portions of the Amateur spectrum where phone activity is authorized.

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

This simple change would make the Region 2 plan consistent with the Region 1 plan, where those involved in a recent review accepted the premise that AM need not be constrained in ways where no problem has been found to exist.

Reference:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-1-hf-bandplan-2006.pdf

Furthermore, the change would be consistent with wording in the Region 3 plan, which is mute against imposing any bandwidth specification on AM activity.

Reference:

http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-3-hf-bandplan.pdf

Removing specific bandwidth parameters against AM now contained in Region 2's band plan would also make the U.S. position at the IARU (as expressed by the ARRL) consistent with the open, unspecified posture on AM bandwidth that the FCC has long maintained in Part 97.

It is important to note more broadly that the concept of segregation-by-bandwidth has been discredited among active, concerned U.S. licensees, as seen in the FCC's public record during the ARRL's failed Petition in the same matter to that federal regulatory agency.

Popular sentiment in that proceeding ran strongly opposed to this proposed substitute for the longstanding and accepted system of organizing activities on HF by a simple, broadbased reference to mode. It is widely known that Rinaldo was the architect and prime antagonist pushing the contrary proposal to use bandwidth as a means of coordinating the layout of modes and activities.

In addition, ARRL CEO Dave Sumner acknowledged before the petition was filed that sentiment among members ran against the idea.

The ARRL's attorney wisely abandoned the Petition and withdrew it before the FCC could consider the arguments arrayed against it. It was thus entirely inappropriate for Rinaldo to, soon after, apparently try to step around that expressed opposition and achieve a version of such segregation at the IARU regional conference that covers all U.S. licensees.

You today are to be commended for soliciting input from those of us affected by his actions, and for now having expressed a willingness to repair the damage he has caused.

Another (related) change I ask you to consider is to remove or seek exemption from the wording in the Region 2 Charter that calls on the ARRL to actively promote implementation by government regulators the prevailing IARU Region 2 voluntary band plan.

That wording today states:

"It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely with their radio amateur communities."

(Source: http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/)

There have been several statements made recently by League officials that the ARRL has no intention of seeking the force of law in having the FCC incorporate into Part 97 any elements of the IARU Band Plan.

That may be true, but as the representative Member Society, you are compelled by "suggestion" to support the wording the IARU has specified above, unless you take steps to the contrary. Otherwise, why have the wording in there, right?

In the prior regional conference in Brazil, given Rinaldo's intransigent behavior, this wording was perceived by many in the AM community to be a way for him to step around his defeated Petition at the FCC, and further his onetime agenda to segregate activities by bandwidth to the severe detriment of popular AM activity.

In summary, your challenge is to reassure those of us who have been shortchanged by his misguided actions to now fix the problems he caused when he encouraged the Region 2 delegates to put enumerated bandwidth on the books against AM.

In conjunction with those repairs, you have the opportunity to state on the record that the IARU's advocacy (in the wording above) is intended to apply only to the regulators of licensees in countries where there is no prevailing guidance in the law as to how activities are arrayed in spectrum allocated to radio hobbyists.

I am available to further discuss by conference call or with any of your individual representatives.

Should you need specific details about AM activity, please see http://amfone.net.  With more than 3,000 registered participants, please note that our part of the hobby is larger than many other activities and modes that are acknowledged in these regional band plans.

Please give consideration accordingly.

Thank you,

I shot this off to the band planning committee.
---------------------
To the ARRL Band Planning Committee,

Subject: 600 meter, 500 KHz frequency allocation.

I wish to encourage the expansion of amateur radio participation in the 495-499 KHz and 501-510 KHz portion of the spectrum to authorized licensees on a secondary basis. The limitations set forth under GMRR M09-1C as prepared by Fritz Raab, W1FR on 1 January, 2010 are acceptable and geographic set-aside frequencies to protect the non-directional beacons should be incorporated into the bandplan.

Modes of operation should be restricted to 150HA1A (CW or QRSS), 62H0J2B, 62H0F1B and 62H0G1D (PSK-31, FSK-31 and MSK-31). Power should be limited to 20 Watts ERP and no contesting should be allowed anywhere in the 600 meter band.

I believe that such an allocation will encourage the experimental nature of amateur radio and provide a new challenge for low power operations.

Sincerely,
Ms. Tisha Hayes/ AA4HA
-------------------------

Here's mine:

I hope everyone took note of this from the link in the initial post:
"The deadline line set by Region 2 for gathering input and formulating recommendations is rather short. Amateurs who would like to submit input should take the following steps:

    * First, study the existing IARU Region 2 band plan posted on the Region 2 Web site. The Region 1 and Region 3 band plans are also posted there, so be sure you are looking at the band plan for Region 2.
    * Next, formulate a clear statement of any change you propose. Include a brief explanation of why you think the change would be beneficial. Please include your name and call sign in your input.
    * Finally, send your input via e-mail no later than April 5, 2010. Messages will be automatically acknowledged."

Once again the (be)League(d) demonstrates how well it likes to screw us.  :'(

New IARU Region 1 band plan became effective March 29, 2010
See:  http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=173&func=download&id=67&chk=4f93e680045681b4344d9f5c64a1fca5&no_html=1

In their(Region 1) band plan, they identify Frequency - Max. Bandwidth - Preferred Mode
In frequency ranges where Phone and CW are allowed together, the Preferred Mode Column lists "All Modes". If you scroll down to "Definitions" - "All Modes" - CW, SSB, and those modes listed as Centres of Activity, plus AM (Consideration should be given to adjacent channel users).

Seems to me, they have AM covered here.

In the Region 3 band plan, "Phone" is listed throughout the various HF band segments. One should agree the both SSB and AM are considered "Phone" modes. If you scroll down to the "Legends" - "Phone" - Phone operation includes SSTV, FAX and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

Looks like AM, for what it's worth, is covered here.


If maximum bandwidths are going to be retained for other modes in the Region 2 band plan, why should they remove them just for the AM mode? Makes no sense.


Wasn't the only petition(no bandwidth limitations - anarchy across all bands) that was discredited by concerned U.S. licensees. How quickly one tries to bury a boondoggle revolution.

6KHZ for AM? That is going to sound like someone talking behind a carpet, not to mention be difficult to understand with noise and deliberate interference from SSB operators. Dang it the ARRL is at it again. I suppose the ARRL is going to send me a free spectum analyzer so I can measure this? I will need one to pass the time tinkering because there won't be much point in putting the rig on the air orlistening in to youse guys till my tower is up.

They are going to have to be taught from Terman, George Sterling, and others that cannot be disputed. Again. I guess they forgot. Thre will also be a few who will go along with it by means of all kinds of schemes, such as an audio filter at the microphone as one inglorious buffoon suggested be forced upon communicators, does not limit transmitted bandwidth as an absolute, but the fellow probably does not know anything about audio processing and by that I don't mean the fancy stuff either.

I wonder if this is a prelude to channelization or just the usual "screw AM, screw your old and somewhat wide SSB military radios, and screw you too" attitude. I am not going to "buy more, now!", just to please these folks and their advertisers. Bandwidth-limiting proposals were tried before and shot down once the public got wind of it. Logic and reasons.

Make your comments to the FCC

Previously certain people, tried to get the FCC to regulate bandwidth to +/-2.8KC. and some others to +/-3KC. If the present attempt is not an outright attack on A3E as well as B8E and B9E, is a shallow attempt to "throw us a bone". I prefer the meat. I will take the meat away from that dog.

The following is from a comment of mine last time this bandwidth crap happened and contains quotes from professional literature representing the state of the art of voice communication in the past. Technology has evolved, but the human ear's requirements have not. I cite the examples of what is necessary for high quality voice communication as compared to "understandable" and "minimum", and ask what the technical reasons are for this and why other modes are not proposed to be restrictied to their own minimum performance, and call the reader to notice who has written these things, esecially since the one that was written by the head of the FCC indicates that more audio range is necessary for high quality voice communications, and F.E. Termans states the minimum for the quality of a 1947 long distance telephone line. Yeah IIRC people had to often ask for things to be repeated and to speak up with even those "high quality" voice communications.

Why the ARRL comes up with arbitrary nonsense figures is beyond me. Is there no one to teach them? Have they no books written by scientists and engineers? Only their own handbook in which they can write what they think is right? Mebby they don't want any more money from me nor do their advertisers.

Dear FCC,

I wish to comment, briefly, upon what is considered
to be appropriate AM communications practice for
good intelligibility.

I am sure there is a happy medium in all this, but it
is not necessarily below an enforced +/-3KHz and
certainly nowhere as low as +/-2.8KHz.

In light of the knowledge quoted below, which represents the
highest state of the art in classical AM comunications
practice, I ask that the FCC not impose statutory
limits on the bandwidth of AM signals. The gentlemans'
agreements and the voluntary limitations of AM modulating
audio frequnecies to what is necessary are enough. No statutotry
limits are called for, nor are they desirable.

I respectfully quote from these long recognized sources of
learned wisdom in the matter of AM communications systems:

============================================================

"Understandable speech requires the reproduction of all
frequencies from about 250 to 2700 cycles, or sideband
frequencies ranging from 250 to 2700 cycles above and
below the carrier frequency."

FROM:  "RADIO ENGINEERING", second edition, 1937, chapter 9,
section 72, page 396, "Waves with Amplitude Modulation",
Frederick Emmons Terman, Sc.D., Professor of Electrical
Engineering, Stanford University.

--Commenters' Note: Mr. Terman's text says 'requires',
therefore this is taken as the minimum requirement for
speech to be 'understandable'. This does not necessarily
imply good communications quality, but merely
'understandability'.

============================================================

"Modulation frequencies Corresponding to Typical Signals
(minimum frequency range that must be met)"

"Long-distance telephone quality.......250-3500 c/s."

FROM:  "RADIO ENGINEERING", third edition, 1947, chapter 9,
section 9-1, page 469, table 9-1 --Modulation frequencies
Corresponding to Typical Signals (minimum frequency range
that must be met)., Frederick Emmons Terman, Sc.D., Professor
of Electrical Engineering and Dean of theSchool of Engineering,
Stanford University. Past president, Institute of Radio Engineers.

--Commenter's note: Please consider the audio quality of long
distance telephone service in 1947.

============================================================

"...For ordinary SSB telephony, M=3000 Hz. .."
"...For high quality SSB Telephony, M=4000Hz. ..."
"...For ordinary DSB telephony, M=6000 Hz. ..."
"...For high quality DSB Telephony, M=8000Hz. ..."

FROM:  "THE RADIO MANUAL", fourth edition, 1950, appendix 5,
page 859, "Table of necessary bandwidths", George E. Sterling,
Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission, and
Robert B. Monroe, Radio Engineer, Columbia Broadcasting
System, D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc. 4th edition, 1950.

=============================================================

"Frequencies up to at least 2,500 cycles, and preferrably 3500
cycles, are necessary for good speech intelligibility."

FROM: "RADIO HANDBOOK", fourteenth edition, 1956, chapter 12,
section 12-1, page 225, Editors and Engineers, Ltd., edited by
William I. Orr, W6SAI.

=============================================================

"...Mediocre reproduction may be restricted to 100-5000 c/s.,
while many radio receivers are limited to 100-3500c/s. It
should be remembered that the frequency range is taken as
overall, including the loss of sidebands and including the
loudspeaker. Wide frequency range is only comfortable to
the listener so long as other forms of distortion are
negligible."

FROM: "THE RADIOTRON DESIGNER'S HANDBOOK, THIRD EDITION", 1941,
chapter 5, page 32, "frequency distortion", THE RADIOTRON
DESIGNER'S HANDBOOK, THIRD EDITION", F. Langford Smith,
S.SC., Member I.R.E, M. I.R.E., A.M.I.E.E., A.M.I.E

=============================================================

At one time the ARRL (RM-11306) tried to get rid of ISB. That failed as well due to any rationale for such ridiculous action.

I don't think it is a good idea to directly contact the FCC on this matter, since there has been no NPRN released or petition submitted (that I know of) regarding bandwidth or the status of AM.  With bureaucratic regulators certain things are best left unsaid until the topic is first addressed for discussion by them, lest we inadvertently plant ideas in their heads.

FCC officials may not have recently given a thought to amateur radio modes and bandwidths, but after reading those comments, could think "hey, that might be a good idea.  Let's give it some thought."

IARU is not any kind of official governmental or inter-governmental agency.  It's more like an international version of ARRL, whose members are made up of the national amateur radio societies of participating nations ( ARRL, RSGB, etc).

Many hams confuse the IARU with the ITU.  They are not the same thing.

Ok, I thought there was a petition, and I failed to find it.

Actually, although I agree with your premise and the citations you use to back it up, it would serve no useful purpose to bring up the idea of a regulatory specification for bandwidth where none now exists.

Let's keep it that way.

I agree.

Go for it. Become famous. Most of the internet forums need some fresh bandwidth fodder to chew on.