The AM Forum

Updated October 13, 2006

The ARRL is specifically seeking member guidance on how the changes will affect current operating activities on 80, 40 and 15 meters (see the current ARRL band plans.)
http://www.remote.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

Comments may be submitted by e-mail. bandplan@www.arrl.org

All e-mails will be read and considered, but individual responses will not be possible due to the message volume expected. The deadline for comments is October 31.

Great opportunity to provide your input now rather than P&M about it later.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the latest FCC changes to the FCC Part 97 rules ("Omnibus") is really "old news" (it actually got accepted back in 2004), I wonder if the ARRL has already formulated a revised "Band Plan".
They've had roughly two years to work on it. I would also expect that any band plan that they formulate, or have formulated, will probably take into account some of the provisions set forth in their submitted Proposed Bandwidth Proposal presently before the FCC.

I want to preface this that this is not an ARRL bash :P

Probably not considering the FCC gave more spectrum to 75 & 40meter phone than the league anticipated.
The original league proposal was to give 25 KHz to phone and an additional 25 KHz to CW/digital modes.
I for one am glad that the FCC actually saw what nonsense that made considering most of the CW portion of 80 meters was an unused wasteland. I know why the league did it, but it just didn't make sense.
Now on to the CW requirement. I wonder if the FCC granting soo much space to phone is a pre cursor to what they plan with the CW requirement NPRM?


Mike, 2ZE

Could very well be; they may have already decided about the future of the CW requirements.

Also, with the phone expansion, they may also feel that with the influx of future "wide" digital modes, whatever they may be, having a larger phone band space makes it easier to implement a "bandwidth by mode" in the future.

I suggest that the group here develop a band plan and publsh it on the forum.  I just don't understand how they really believe they are entitled to establish what and where we operate.

I believe they should ask permission to develop a plan.

They have a published band plan.
ARRL said: "The ARRL is specifically seeking member guidance on how the changes (i.e. 04-140) will affect current operating activities on 80, 40 and 15 meters (see the current ARRL band plans.)"

Maybe the changes don't affect anyone's current operating activities, so any band plan change would be minimal.

.

If they really wanted input, they would seek it from more than the 20 percent of licensed amateurs who send money to them.

Nice, too, that they added a we won't respond to you, for good measure.

It would be premature to formulate a band plan now.  Better to let usage of the band evolve on its own first, than to dictate a "plan" from the outset.

Since their request has already received a lot dialogue on various boards and reflectors, I’m sure the word is getting out. Their main board, where all their news is posted, is open to non-members too.

And "Dave" has already responded to me. "Will they respond to everyone", probably not, but, if you forsee some major issue with the changes going into Part 97, or some personal concerns, it might prompt a response back. I would also suggest that any e-mail to the ARRL about a revised band plan, also include a "cc" to the Director of your Division, whether you're a member or not.

Of course he did. You are part of the ARRL Axis of Evil.  ;D