AM totally missing from RAC Bandplan

[k4kyv]

We  hear a lot about ARRL refusing to acknowledge the existence of AM.  That was true some years back, but now, they do at least acknowledge AM in the bandplan, and AM is occasionally mentioned in QST.

I happened upon this Chart for Canadian Band Allocations, published by RAC (Radio Amateurs of Canada).  Since Canada has no subband segmentation by licence class nor by emission mode, the band plan is entirely voluntary.

Click on the link below to view the allocations chart (pdf format).  You will notice that AM is conspicuous by its absence, despite the fact that there is substantial AM activity in Canada.  And I never have heard of a Canadian ham getting a pink slip for running a bandwidth in excess of 6 kHz.

http://www.rac.ca/downloads/HFbandplan.pdf

[ve6pg]

...I'M NOT SURPRISED...WHEN THE GUYS WHO RUN RAC HAVE LITTLE OR NO  UNDERSTANDING OF RADIO...TYPICAL APPLIANCE OPERATOR STUFF, AND DIPOLE IN A BAG...WHAT BUGS ME IS, HAMS IN THIS COUNTRY SEEM TO THINK THAT "THEIR NATIONAL ASSOCIATION" ACTUALLY LAYS DOWN THE LAW AS TO WHAT WE CAN DO, AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT...I ASSUME MUCH LIKE THE ARRL....SK...

[Ed-VA3ES]

...I'M NOT SURPRISED...WHEN THE GUYS WHO RUN RAC HAVE LITTLE OR NO  UNDERSTANDING OF RADIO...TYPICAL APPLIANCE OPERATOR STUFF, AND DIPOLE IN A BAG...WHAT BUGS ME IS, HAMS IN THIS COUNTRY SEEM TO THINK THAT "THEIR NATIONAL ASSOCIATION" ACTUALLY LAYS DOWN THE LAW AS TO WHAT WE CAN DO, AND NOT THE GOVERNMENT...I ASSUME MUCH LIKE THE ARRL....SK... 

Actually what you have described, is hogwash.

Jim Dean, VE3IQ, Ken Pulfer, VE3PU, Doug Leach, VE3XK, and many others are hardly "appliance operators", they're  hams of long-standing,  and many are fellow members of my QCWA Chapter, most of 50 and 60 years standing.

Most Canadian  appliance ops are not even RAC members, as they believe in a free ride.   Most RAC members are stalwart hams, some are builders, some rag-chewers (most) and some are contesters. 

I don't know where you get your characterization of Canadian hams from, but your dead wrong.

As far as AM is concerned, it is simply lumped in with "phone" operation, as  Industry Canada, and RAC  don't  differentiate between  voice modes.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

We  hear a lot about ARRL refusing to acknowledge the existence of AM.  That was true some years back, but now, they do at least acknowledge AM in the bandplan, and AM is occasionally mentioned in QST.

AM Calling frequencies are identified in ARRL Band Plans. ARRL web site has a dedicated AM page. The ARRL WAS Award now has a specialty award identifier for all WAS AM. For the last several years, the January QST has been a "vintage issue" with lots of AM exposure. The ARRL T.I.S. pages has posted a number of vintage AM articles for review and download. They have a working AM vintage station set up at W1AW. In their withdrawn Bandwidth proposal, they specifically excluded AM from the maximum 6 KHz phone bandwidth rule.

They love us, because we drive them crazy, and we're here to stay, whether we're using vintage AM equipment, modern off-the-shelf boxes, or all software controlled equipment.

[k4kyv]

As far as AM is concerned, it is simply lumped in with "phone" operation, as  Industry Canada, and RAC  don't  differentiate between  voice modes.

But why doesn't that chart simply refer to "phone" instead of "SSB"?

Actually, the rules simply say "maximum bandwidth 6 kHz".  Canada has adopted regulation-by-bandwidth, similar to what the ARRL was proposing for the US.

6 kHz is a bit narrow for AM, considering the practicality of building a low-pass audio filter of such sharp cutoff.  Even the FCC, when they were proposing bandwidth limits under Docket 20777 proposed a limit of 3.5 kHz for SSB, and a few years later, under the "Plain Language" docket, they attempted to sneak in a maximum bandwidth of 7.0 kHz for AM.  Of course, once the ham community read that proposal, the opposition was overwhelming, since it was proposing to use the dumbed-down CB rules as a model to rewrite the amateur rules.

But I never have heard of a Canadian ham being cited for running in excess of 6 kHz, a limit that was imposed years before subbands were deleted in Canada.  But all the Canadian hams I talk to on the subject assure me that this is something "no-one worries about".  Apparently Industry Canada has not shown much interest in actually enforcing it to the standards expressed in the rules.

[Ed-VA3ES]

But I never have heard of a Canadian ham being cited for running in excess of 6 kHz, a limit that was imposed years before subbands were deleted in Canada.  But all the Canadian hams I talk to on the subject assure me that this is something "no-one worries about".  Apparently Industry Canada has not shown much interest in actually enforcing it to the standards expressed in the rules. 

Industry Canada understands that anyone running AM would naturally be a "techie" or builder, or at very least knowledgeable about modulation limits.    They also understand that anyone running serious power knows how to use it, thus the overlooking of the "750 Watts output" reg.   Anyone running a KW of AM, probably knows what they're doing. 

Besides, how many Canadians are actually running AM?   I can count a  handful across the country.

[WA3VJB]

Ed, would you be willing to simply ask their people to revise the chart to say "phone" instead of SSB ?

It may be an oversight, not intended to constrain activity or slight anything that's not mainstream, yet provided for, under Canada's regulations.

I nailed the author of a QST article a couple years ago for failing to specifically use the mode designator "AM" during obvious references to the mode. It was as if the term had stuck in his throat, they love us so much up there, but it turns out he said he knew what he was talking about and presumed everyone else did too.

Uh-huh.

But, let's give RAC the benefit of the doubt, pending a query.

[Ed-VA3ES]

Ed, would you be willing to simply ask their people to revise the chart to say "phone" instead of SSB ?

It may be an oversight, not intended to constrain activity or slight anything that's not mainstream, yet provided for, under Canada's regulations.

I nailed the author of a QST article a couple years ago for failing to specifically use the mode designator "AM" during obvious references to the mode. It was as if the term had stuck in his throat, they love us so much up there, but it turns out he said he knew what he was talking about and presumed everyone else did too.

Uh-huh.
But, let's give RAC the benefit of the doubt, pending a query.   

Can do. I'll contact the RAC people today. Their office is here in Ottawa.  I'll also send an email to the person responsible for that chart (if I can find him).

Thanks for the tip-off.

[Ed-VA3ES]

OK - here is the email I've just sent off to the people responsible for RAC published bandplan:
--------------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Sieb [mailto:esieb@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:29 PM
To: ve3kz@rac.ca; service@rac.ca; vo1xa@rac.ca; ve7ef@rac.ca
Subject: Small change to RAC official band plan?


Dear OM's,

The use of AM (amplitude modulation) on the amateur bands by Canadian Amateurs has grown in the last few years.  I am Canadian Director of "AM International",  a group which promotes the restoration and use of classic and vintage AM transmitters on the amateur bands. AMI is attempting to promote the responsible operation of AM transmitters on the air. We encourage modern restoration practices that make use of negative peak limiting, negative cycle loading and other techniques that help prevent splatter. But our real aim is to re-acquaint both veteran and new  hams to the wonderful sound of a properly operated AM rig, and to introduce new hams to the sound that attracted many of us more experienced hams, in the first place!

As well, there is the "Short Skip" website, which is an AM oriented forum  here in Canada. http://www.va3nth.com/shortskip/forum/index.php   

I can personally count about 25 active AM hams in Canada, from the Maritimes and Newfoundland, (VE1BDC, VE1LAS) to operators in Alberta, (VE6PG), and operators in Manitoba, (VE4BX), and  at least a half-dozen here in Ontario, (VE3NTH, VE3LVL, VE3AJM, VA3ES, VE3ICP, VE3BRL) and another bunch in Quebec, (VE2SWC, VE2FSQ, VE2BIA, VE2VMB). I'm sure there are others who I've missed, in B.C. and elsewhere.  We even have our 80 metre net listed in "Electric Radio"  http://www.ermag.com/  .

So why am I sending you this missive? I've noticed that the official published bandplan chart, on the RAC website http://www.rac.ca/downloads/HFbandplan.pdf

denotes voice operation as SSB only.  This is incorrect, as we all use AM frequently.  Could not this description be changed to "phone" to more correctly denote the actual modes used?

It's a small thing, I know, but we AM'ers would really appreciate it.

Cordial 73's

Ed Sieb, VA3ES

[Ed-VA3ES]

Looks like we're starting to get some action!.   VE7EF  has responded positively to my email, and will address this issue with the rest of the bandplan commitee in an effort to get support for the change.

[Ed-VA3ES]

Success!

-----Original Message-----
From: John  On Behalf Of John Iliffe
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:32 PM
To: Ed Sieb
Subject: [RAC-Bulletin] New Proposeed HF Band Plans


A new RAC proposed band plan is now posted on the RAC Web site.

RAC's HF Band Planning Committee has revised the present band plan and
it is now posted on the Web and awaiting your comments. You can access
it from:   

       http://www.rac.ca/service/hfband.htm
----------
Send comments to: rachq@rac.ca

[KB2WIG]

             "   Success!   "

Looks like Ed has got  their 'stamp' of approval .... ..            klc

[ve6pg]

..hey ed..gud stuff., but it still lists 3885, and 7290 as am "centTERS" of activity...why, i dont know...sk..

[WA3VJB]

There are a few things about the "centers" of activity for AM, but remember, the goal of the correspondence wasn't primarily to move or add frequencies of note. It was to restore the presence of AM among the modes and specialties listed in the plan, or, at a minimum, remove the constraining reference to "SSB" where phone bands are indicated.

I thank Ed for pursuing this diplomatically but persistently.

If only the Newington group could respond and implement such a suggestion as quickly.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Hey, it only took about two years to get the ARRL WAS Award changed. Sometimes, good things come in slow processes.

[WA3VJB]

Yes, it has changed alright. Not so good however.
I went and checked that out after you mentioned it earlier, Pete.
Did I miss an "AM endorsement" that would have been a nice nod to our part of it?

Endorsement stickers for the basic mixed mode/band award and any of the specialty awards are available for CW, Novice, QRP, Packet, EME and any single band. The Novice endorsement is available for the applicant who has worked all states as a Novice licensee. QRP is defined as 10 watts input (or 5 watts output) of the applicant only and is affirmed by signature of the applicant on the application. 

So lets summarize. We kvetch to the League that SSB gets a special endorsement according to their awards committee for the Worked All States certificate, and we ask that such an endorsement be made available for AM, which is actually a specialty among phone modes on HF. We are denied on grounds there are just too many minor little parts of the hobby and not enough resources to just cough up an endorsement for all that come along.

They drop the SSB endorsement, and that's that on that.

Wonder how our numbers stack up against EME, Novice, and any single band.

Hmmm ?

[WD8BIL]

AM Calling frequencies are identified in ARRL Band Plans.

And in their broadcast sked.

'course they broadcast their 9:45p.m. SSB bulletins on the 7290 AM Calling frequency they were so gracious to post in that bandplan !!!

[ve6pg]

..interesting don...i know alot of hams have not been around to remember the am/ssb wars...i was an swl then, and do remember the problems. one reason i enjoy am is, when i was a kid, i had a bc348, and didnt know what the cw oscillator was for..i found out by accident it could detect a ssb signal. but, i fondly remember listening on 160, and there was hardly any ssb, just cw and am fone.
 today, i'm finding alot of hams, do not know how to use their own equipment. i get frequent complaints from guys who are listening with a noise blanker on, or they would not consider using their rf gain control...but they put the onus on me, that i'm the problem...
 not my fault they come too close, or that i have a good antenna system....tim...sk..

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I just emailed ARRL and pointed out that their rules PDF file on their web site, as was as the general WAS description,  did not mention AM yet the awards application did.

There's no reason to now that the specific "SSB" has been removed from the rules. It's now a WAS Phone Award for either AM, FM, USB, LSB, Other.
It's not a "specialty" award nor is it an "endorsement" add on to the WAS award.

[ve6pg]

..my guess is, i got off topic...we as canadians have been operating am, for a long time, on 3725. the reason was, to get away from qrm from, and to, ssb ops. there was no other reason, except away from everyone. at that time, it was...
 but what bothers me about this rac bandplan, is, that it is viewed as law, in canada...far from the truth...i can operate am, or any mode, down to 3500, not 3600 as rac "suggests".  but, most hams see this stuff in print, or whichever, believe it to be the way it was laid down by industry canada.

...when i lived in ve6 land, i was an avid cw dxer..this was the early days of packet radio, and i put up a link to a cluster on 30m. this was on an unused portion of 2 metres, and i got alot of complaints, because i was'nt following the rac band plan, and repeater councils. the local ve6 hams, actually threatened me, because i had not cleared it with them....i told them to get bent, and read the regs for hams in canada, as laid down by industry canada, the people i answer to, not some self centred, self interest group. i feel the same today, my government tells me what i can do and where, nobody else...tim...sk...

[WA3VJB]

Do bandplans like this really carry that much weight, Tim ?

That seems to have been the flaw in all such voluntary plans -- they are rigid, and fail to encourage expansion and shifting to suit occupancy and propagation.

My view is that it should be any open spot on the dial that can support a given mode with a minimum of interference to the neighbors, as responsibly assessed by those who propose to operate at that location.

That carries no promise of avoiding all interference -- just that steps are taken to minimize it to the greatest extent practicable.

That's why I've never felt the need to apologize for responsibly using spectrum with the mode I use. The AM community does its part to fill up and utilize spectrum that otherwise may not see use. That's all the justification anyone needs.

[k4kyv]

Do bandplans like this really carry that much weight, Tim ?

That seems to have been the flaw in all such voluntary plans -- they are rigid, and fail to encourage expansion and shifting to suit occupancy and propagation.

Actually, voluntary bandplans can be flexible and allow/encourage shifting to suit occupancy and conditions.  If they end up being totally unrealistic, amateurs simply won't conform to them since they carry no weight of law.  They are suggestions at best.  And when the band is lightly occupied and the chances of causing interference is nil, there is no "letter of the law" that says you can't transmit anywhere it is convenient.

It is government enforced subbands that are rigid and inflexible - and the wheels of government turn so slowly that it is usually a near-impossibility change the rules to conform to occupancy and usage.  Look how many years it took to get the 75m phone band expanded.  And the present subband allocations are still far from perfect.  The legacy of the long abandoned concept of incentive licensing is still with us after 40 years!

[KB2WIG]

       " That's why I've never felt the need to apologize for responsibly using spectrum with the mode I use. The AM community does its part to fill up and utilize spectrum that otherwise may not see use. That's all the justification anyone needs. "

I check out a 50 Mc Prop. page. Tonight, one of the users was complaining  about a PSK signal 5Khz off the SSB calling frequency......   FYIs, the nominal  bandwidth of  a PSK signal is  -- 31 HZ -- thats  thirty-one cps ... Granted, if the transmitter is overdriven one will have problems, but the gripe was  -  the op didn't follow the band plan -.  No matter how you opperate, someone will cry about it .... ..          klc

[WA3VJB]

Hi Don,

Even a band plan that's "voluntary" carries an intention to establish who runs what where.

You will get people who don't see the optional nature of suggested operating areas, and they'll kvetch that someone's out of their box, not that there's actual interference.

Maybe there's a continuum, where most people get it and they're fine with uncompliant activities.  But there's the kilocycle cops, maybe including the one KC just pointed out, who resent that someone has come near enough to "their" frequency even if it's not being used.  If they're pointing at a "band plan" as a basis for their complaint, I disagree. If there was a chance someone might actually have wanted to make a call, then the PSK station should have considered that.

And so it goes with any written tablet with assigned frequencies or segments, be they an FCC mandate, or some group's idea of how things should work.

If we are lucky, the ARRL will realize it won't be possible to try to re-align all the HF modes and activities by bandwidth, because no consensus is likely on any voluntary band plan they think would be needed to carry out a flawed method of defining what goes where.

The RAC proposal, by contrast, acknowledges existing patterns as a template for continued coordination among the majority who already accept these layouts.

[ve6pg]

..interesting....i do believe people think a band plan is an actual interpretation of the laws. i've herd so many canadians referring to something called "the cw portion"...we dont have such a thing here. a guy can operate cw where ever he chooses....but having said all this, if we all agree that rac, or the arrl do not have any legitimate strength to enforce these things, and only the governments involved, why bother doing this at all?...it would appear that they are wasting their time, playing at something they have no jurisdiction over....tim...sk..