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

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete, I'm sorry, but I can only hope that you haven't read the various ARRL directors' and officials' messages we've passed along.  That would explain why your ideas on League motives seem to be based on how you'd *like* things to be, rather than how they actually are as represented by the words and deeds of the officials and directors themselves.

Actually, I've read them all, plus a few additional that you probably haven't seen. I believe, based on the responses I read, I've satisfied with the ARRL response with the exception of the Central Director's (probably due to lack of meds) initial response. I got his pitch but his choice of words and presentation was bad. I know what rules govern my amateur radio activities. I don't try to speculate what might happen further down an indeterminate road in some undefined time frame.

And in my opinion, some people ask a question; don't like the response or it doesn't agree with their mindset; and so they ask it again; and on and on.

For example, you said:

>Gee, I thought I said something like that but I was just speculating.

But the quote in question was actually said straight-out by the Central Division ARRL Director.   Why would it matter what you were speculating upon?  Much more important are the actual words and deeds of the people involved.

If on, the other hand, you *have* read the information I've passed along, then I'm left to think that it is more important for you to help the League save face than to help ensure that we have sensible bandplans and regulations. 

Steve WD8DAS

Actually, I said it twice, once on amradio.whatever, where I speculated probably in latter part of 2008 they might intro a new regulation by bandwidth, and in this thread "Reply 275", where I said: Proposed regulation by bandwidth is not going away here in the U. S. We won't see it today or even tomorrow, but several years down the road, most, if not all countries in all Regions, will define and have some sort of "regulations by bandwidth".

With the voluntary Region 2 band plan, I see no reason for the ARRL to "save face". They have responded to the issue in question (Region 2 new band plan). While I will agree that some words, phrases, etc. may not have been entirely consistent from response to response, I believe that may be due to the writer's style rather then not knowing the topic or trying to hide something. 

Besides, the ARRL already has a published voluntary band plan, that many amateurs already use, that's been around for years, and we already have FCC regulations (sensible or not is a matter of personal opinion) that govern our amateur radio operating and obviously take precedent over any voluntary Region 2 band plan or any other voluntary band plan.

[WA3VJB]

I'm satisfied with the ARRL response

Glad to read this Pete. I bet the League is happy to read it too.
I guess that means you won't be asking for any kind of details past what they've given you?

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

Actually, I've read them all, plus a few additional that you probably haven't seen. I believe, based on the responses I read, I've satisfied with the ARRL response with the exception of the Central Director's (probably due to lack of meds) initial response. I got his pitch but his choice of words and presentation was bad. I know what rules govern my amateur radio activities. I don't try to speculate what might happen further down an indeterminate road in some undefined time frame.

Boy, I'm glad I was sitting down when I read THAT!

[wd8das]

Pete, I envy you in your faith.  I wish I could be so trusting... life would be so much simpler...

Steve WD8DAS

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete, I envy you in your faith.  I wish I could be so trusting... life would be so much simpler...

Steve WD8DAS

Remember. this is "hobby radio". I don't let it dictate my life's activities but I do believe that periodic churn and change within the hobby is a good thing.

Over the last several years, the ARRL has had to come away with the lesson that they can no longer operate in a true vacuum. Any of their activities, proposals, meetings and decisions made with other international radio organizations, and anything else they do that affects the U. S. amateur community, is going to come under "our" scrutiny.

Generally, my first point of contact is my Director and then move up from there, depending upon the issue or concern. Directors need to assume the responsibility, since their position should dictate that they do, to propagate all issues and concerns in a timely manner between their respective amateur radio community and the senior management.

Relative to the new voluntary Region 2 band plan, in hindsight, they(ARRL) probably would have saved themselves some grief if they had posted a blurb on their Amateur Radio News section of their homepage outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community. They did publish a blurb in their weekly ARRL Letter that a revised Region 2 band plan had been approved but did not substantiate it with any real details.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete said:

Actually, I've read them all, plus a few additional that you probably haven't seen. I believe, based on the responses I read, I've satisfied with the ARRL response with the exception of the Central Director's (probably due to lack of meds) initial response. I got his pitch but his choice of words and presentation was bad. I know what rules govern my amateur radio activities. I don't try to speculate what might happen further down an indeterminate road in some undefined time frame.

Boy, I'm glad I was sitting down when I read THAT!

I hope it didn't hurt.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I'm satisfied with the ARRL response

Glad to read this Pete. I bet the League is happy to read it too.
I guess that means you won't be asking for any kind of details past what they've given you?

Nope and what's the point

However, you and I both know that anyone can write a request for proposed rule-making to the FCC, so some periodic diligence in reviewing daily activities on the FCC site is probably a good thing. Ya never know who might get the bright idea to pitch a new proposal to the FCC that would affect amateur radio current activities.

[WA3VJB]

outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community.

Explain to me why the club's initial notice to constituents would be the results, rather than the planning, ahead of the Region 2 vote.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

Generally, my first point of contact is my Director and then move up from there, depending upon the issue or concern. Directors need to assume the responsibility, since their position should dictate that they do, to propagate all issues and concerns in a timely manner between their respective amateur radio community and the senior management.

This wasn't a typical ARRgghhL issue. This was a nationwide issue that is critical to all hams, regardless if they are members of the (be)League(d) or not. They are speaking on behalf of all hams in the USA even though the true membership is roughly 20~25% of the ham radio population.

Pete went on to say:

They did publish a blurb in their weekly ARRL Letter that a revised Region 2 band plan had been approved but did not substantiate it with any real details.

What they needed to do was put out a true 'QST' in the sense of the meaning of the abreviation. They know where all the hams post. A posting to eHam or QRZ.com from "HQ" would have gotten the ball rolling. But as you have noted, they didn't put anything out with any details on their letter. So this demonstrates to me they were not being forthright even with their own membership!

[Pete, WA2CWA]

outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community.

Explain to me why the club's initial notice to constituents would be the results, rather than the planning, ahead of the Region 2 vote.

The main thrust for a revised International Region 2 band plan was to follow the basic style and format of the current Region 1 band plan. Since in the U. S., FCC rules and regulations take precedent over any voluntary band plans (1998 Ruling, RM-9259), what point would be served in any domestic U. S. amateur input/discussion, planning, socialization, etc. U. S. amateurs are not governed legally by voluntary band plans.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

This wasn't a typical ARRgghhL issue. This was a nationwide issue that is critical to all hams, regardless if they are members of the (be)League(d) or not. They are speaking on behalf of all hams in the USA even though the true membership is roughly 20~25% of the ham radio population.

It's a voluntary band plan. How can a voluntary band plan be critical to all hams? That makes no sense.

What they needed to do was put out a true 'QST' in the sense of the meaning of the abreviation. They know where all the hams post. A posting to eHam or QRZ.com from "HQ" would have gotten the ball rolling. But as you have noted, they didn't put anything out with any details on their letter. So this demonstrates to me they were not being forthright even with their own membership!

Both of the places you mentioned are well-known troll meccas. I would never expect, nor tolerate, as an ARRL member for them to post active dialog on those two sites, much less any other site, other than their own. We have our own history here on this site when a staff member tried to engage in active dialog with our own members.

The weekly ARRL Letter is e-mailed to over 66,000 recipients. Although brief, the revised voluntary Region 2 band plan approval notice did get out to all of them. The ARRL Letter is also posted each week on the non-members side of their web site. It's also available on the ARRL Audio News. If you only get all your amateur news from QRZ and e-ham, you're most likely missing a lot.

[WA3VJB]

what point would be served in any domestic U. S. amateur input/discussion,

Please explain why the League would take part in the discussion in Brazil. Does Rinaldo somehow have a better perspective than any domestic U.S. amateur?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

what point would be served in any domestic U. S. amateur input/discussion,

Please explain why the League would take part in the discussion in Brazil. Does Rinaldo somehow have a better perspective than any domestic U.S. amateur?

You're making me laugh
If you don't know the answers to your own questions, then your entire pitch for the last 1 1/2  months makes no sense.

[WA3VJB]

OK, I take it that you acknowledge Rinaldo has no real say in the IARU Region 2 matter, since the U.S. is not a participant.

Or else you're admitting that he provided input that is in conflict with the intentions of the ARRL (to ignore the Region 2 Plan).

Which way do you want it ?http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paradox
PARADOX
1.   a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2.   a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3.   any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4.   an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

[WA3VJB]

To: Delegates and representatives, International Amateur Radio Union
From: Concerned amateur licensee W. Perry Wheless, K4CWW
P.O. Box 11134
Tuscaloosa, AL 35486
Email k4cww
Subject:

REQUEST TO AMEND

(PDF attached)

[WA3VJB]

From   Larry Robison
to   w5zn@arrl.org,
date   Nov 17, 2007 12:17 PM
subject   Re: REQUEST TO AMEND THE IARU Region 2 BAND PLAN
   
Joel,

Thanks again. I have read your reply carefully several times. If you
read your reply carefully, you might understand my concern.

While you state that there are no current specific plans to recommend
the adoption of the strict standards of bandwidth set forth in the IARU
Region 2 bandplan, you cannot or do not commit that the ARRL will not
seek such restrictions in the future! You all but admit that such a move
is possible. Considering that the Preamble to the IARU Band Plan
suggests that you recommend this plan to the regulatory agency for your
country, and that the ARRL has already expressed it's desire to write
bandwidth control into Part 97, your statement regarding the ARRL's
position is highly suspect!

I would also ask you to look at the roots of the previous attempt to
institute bandwidth control. There was a Board meeting several years ago
where, out of the blue, the ARRL Directors agreed to recommend bandwidth
regulation to the FCC, at the earliest possible opportunity.  It was a
quick vote rammed through without discussion and certainly no
information about such a recommendation to it's members! I was an ARRL
member at that time and can attest to the lack of any warning about such
a move to it's members. This was a very massive issue and arrogant for
the ARRL to make such a move without total membership involvement. It
was vigorously supported by Rinaldo and Sumner and while it failed, I do
not think that they have changed their minds, nor do I think that they
intend to fail again. Please point out the flaw in my thinking!

Let's be specific Joel ...

1) Are you in touch with the sentiment on this issue, as pertains to the
ARRL executives responsible for RM-11306, i.e.  Rinaldo and Sumner
2) Despite telephone conversations et all, do you deny that the ARRL and
Rinaldo (specifically) were responsible for the proposed bandwidth
limits in Brazil?
3) Do you understand that your statements to me indicate that you and
the ARRL, as an IARU member, has no plans to follow the IARU
recommendations, even though you contend that you had no leading role in
their drafting?
4) Do you understand  that the Central Division Director, which I deem
"a loose cannon", publicly displayed extreme attitudes on this and is
doing damage to the ARRL as a result? I would hope a full apology would
be forthcoming for his rant.
5) Can you understand our informed reluctance to swallow the "no
ulterior motive" position that you now espouse?

I would invite you to provide specific answers to the above 5 questions.
A complete record of our email communication is published on
http://amham.com/ . I have formatted, not edited the exchange.

Regards
--Larry W8ER



Personally I believe that you are trying
Joel Harrison wrote:
> Larry,
>
> Thank you for seeking a clarification of our position regarding the IARU
> Region 2 band plan.
>
> RM-11306 was withdrawn by ARRL and there are no plans to resubmit it or a
> version of it. Any decision to do so would be at the direction of the ARRL
> Board of Directors. While the board could decide to revisit the concept at
> anytime in the future, I can tell you there is no plan, or even discussion,
> for doing so. Please understand, though, that the IARU Region 2 band plan
> has absolutely no connection whatsoever with RM-11306 and any rumor
> suggesting such is false...period!
>
> In addition, the ARRL did not "push" for any specific item in the band plan.
> Comments suggesting such are blatantly false and are being distributed by a
> U.S. radio amateur that is misrepresenting comments from an IARU Region 2
> officer he spoke with on the telephone. I spoke with this IARU Region 2
> officer in person two weeks ago and he is very upset that this U.S. radio
> amateur is misrepresenting his comments. What we did was to cooperate with
> several other countries to develop a general band plan that would best fit
> the entire region, understanding there will be some differences with band
> plans in specific countries and in those cases the local band plan takes
> precedence. Also, many countries do not have any regulation of their amateur
> radio allocations by emission designator, bandwidth, or anything and they
> look to a band plan for guidance. That, of course, is not the case in the
> United States where we have our amateur radio allocations regulated by
> emission designator.
>
> The IARU Region 2 band plan is in no way a move by ARRL to adopt regulation
> by bandwidth in the United States. The two are not connected in any way and
> any suggestion of such is false. We have no regulation by bandwidth petition
> proposed or planned subsequent to the withdrawal of RM-11306.
>
> Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document
> that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always,
> is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from
> all sources, including the AM community, and we will continue to work toward
> the best possible band plan for the entire region, as well as to continue to
> recognize existing modes of operation in the United States in our band plans
> which includes, and for me will always include, AM operation.
>
> You are free to distribute this reply as long as you distribute it in its
> entirety and do not cut or paste parts in an attempt to misrepresent its
> contents as has been happening recently by certain individuals in the AM
> community.
>
> Thanks again for seeking a clarification of our position, Larry. ARRL is in
> no way attempting to eliminate or restrict AM operation in the United
> States.
>
> 73 Joel W5ZN
> ARRL President

from   Larry Robison
to   w5zn@arrl.org,
date   Nov 13, 2007 9:17 PM
subject   Re: REQUEST TO AMEND THE IARU Region 2 BAND PLAN   
      
Reply
   
   Joel,

Thank you for your reply.

Please allow me to be direct. While the IARU Region 2 bandplan does not
eliminate AM as a mode it does suggest limitations that are
unacceptable. Recently the ARRL submitted a proposal to the FCC to
establish regulation by bandwidth (RM-11306) in Part 97 of the FCC
rules. It is very obviously a goal that your organization deems
important, despite your protest to the contrary.  None of us contend
that the proposed IARU band plan for Region 2 contains regulation for
the US amateur. We are not naive enough to believe however that the ARRL
would push such restrictions in such an international forum without reason.

Would you be willing to clearly state that the ARRL will not seek any
form of bandwidth regulation in the United States and most certainly
would not point to the IARU Region 2 bandplan acceptance of such
restrictions as being a model? Doing so would surely calm my fears!

Be assured that your reply will be distributed broadly to the entire US
AM community.

--Larry Robison, W8ER

Joel Harrison wrote:
> Larry,
>
> Thank you for letting me know of your concerns with regard to the band plan
> adopted recently by the member-societies of IARU Region 2. You sent your
> message to a number of individuals; because the ARRL is the representative
> organization in the IARU for radio amateurs of the United States, I am
> replying on their behalf.
> IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are
> developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU
> member-societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines that are
> intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited
> frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory
> authority. On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans
> to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue
> of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended
> more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be
> counterproductive.
>
> The new IARU Region 2 band plan was developed by delegates to the Region 2
> Conference from a number of countries. It does not align in every respect
> either with the FCC rules or with operating patterns followed by US
> amateurs. Unlike the United States, most countries do not have regulations
> setting out subbands for different types of emission. Even in the US the FCC
> rules do not provide much detail with regard to frequency use. As FCC
> amateur licensees we are obliged to cooperate with one another in selecting
> transmitting channels and making the most effective use of amateur service
> frequencies, and to follow good engineering and good amateur practice.
>
> Your message objects to the Region 2 band plan for "suggesting limits that
> are more severe than regulations from the governments in the region."
> However, the band plan does not contain "limits." As voluntary guidelines
> the band plan cannot by definition be "more severe" than regulations. And
> finally, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a
> subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.
> Your message refers to IARU President Larry Price as wishing "to discourage
> footnotes among the various regional plans he oversees." First, the IARU
> President does not "oversee" regional band plans. Each regional plan is
> developed by the member-societies of that region, in accordance with the
> constitution, bylaws and rules of the regional organization. The regional
> organizations are autonomous entities and do not answer to the IARU
> President. Second, Mr. Price's observation with regard to footnotes had
> nothing whatsoever to do with IARU band plans. Footnotes are not by their
> nature either good or bad; it depends on what they say. Mr. Price's
> observation had to do specifically with footnotes in the ITU Table of
> Frequency Allocations that prohibit amateur operation, or authorize sharing
> by additional services, in certain countries in certain parts of the bands
> that are allocated in the ITU Table to the amateur service. One of the goals
> of the IARU is to minimize such footnotes. On the other hand, there are
> other footnotes to the ITU Table that are extremely beneficial to Amateur
> Radio, such as the ones permitting amateur-satellite operation. In any case
> this is totally unrelated to IARU band planning activities, which are
> internal to the amateur service and to each regional IARU organization and
> have nothing whatever to do with the ITU.
>
> I hope this has reassured you that nothing will happen on January 1 that
> will in any way affect your use of AM. We are always seeking ways to improve
> the process of revision of the IARU Region 2 band plan and the ARRL Board of
> Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL's input to IARU Region 2, are
> always open to member input on future revisions that ARRL delegates may take
> to future Region 2 Conferences. I encourage you to communicate with the
> Division Director in your ARRL Division.
>
> Sincere 73,
>
> Joel Harrison, W5ZN
> ARRL President
>
>

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Over the last several years, the ARRL has had to come away with the lesson that they can no longer operate in a true vacuum.

I don't think they have learned that lesson. Otherwise the ARRL wouldn't be involved in their current mistake - the IARU bandplan.

It's a voluntary band plan. How can a voluntary band plan be critical to all hams? That makes no sense.

Then it also makes no sense for the ARRL to be involved in creating and so vociferously defending it. It can't be both ways.

[Bill, KD0HG]

"To retain respect for sausages and regulations, one must not watch them in the making."

-Otto von Bismarck

[Pete, WA2CWA]

From   Larry Robison
to   w5zn@arrl.org,
date   Nov 17, 2007 12:17 PM
subject   Re: REQUEST TO AMEND THE IARU Region 2 BAND PLAN
   ...................

This entire exchange was reported here on Reply 356 on Sat, Nov. 17 by W9AD, by pointing to the web site where it was all posted. I believe all of our members have the ability to click on the link that W9AD provided.

I don't see anything new here so is there a point you're trying to bring out by bringing the entire exchange here?

[WA3VJB]

Thanks for playing, Pete.

[WD8BIL]

Ya never know who might get the bright idea to pitch a new proposal to the FCC that would affect amateur radio current activities.

So the status-quo will always be acceptable OR.... any proposal not to your liking indicates the authors are "less (fill in the blank)" than you or the ARRL ?

However, the band plan does not contain "limits."

He's playing with terms here. There are "limits" SUGGESTED in the R2BP. Perhaps any further references in letters to these guys should contain "suggested". It's significant because suggestions do become reality from time to time.

I don't see anything new here so is there a point you're trying to bring out by bringing the entire exchange here?

Bringing it here makes it easier to reference in context.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Ya never know who might get the bright idea to pitch a new proposal to the FCC that would affect amateur radio current activities.

So the status-quo will always be acceptable OR.... any proposal not to your liking indicates the authors are "less (fill in the blank)" than you or the ARRL ?

That's your decision, and hopefully based on "accurate" and "complete" information that's made available to you.

However, the band plan does not contain "limits."

He's playing with terms here. There are "limits" SUGGESTED in the R2BP. Perhaps any further references in letters to these guys should contain "suggested". It's significant because suggestions do become reality from time to time.

Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

I don't see anything new here so is there a point you're trying to bring out by bringing the entire exchange here?

Bringing it here makes it easier to reference in context.

OK, I have no problem with that. Maybe then someone can address Mr. Harrison's allegations from November 17, in Paragraph's 3 and 6:
Paragraph 3: In addition...
Paragraph 6 You are free...

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Thanks for playing, Pete.

Of course, one must remember that tampering with people's emotions is never a great play sport.

[W3SLK]

Hmmmm, they must have turned off their email machines. I have yet to receive a response from Sumner, Rinaldo, or Price with an answer to my three questions.

[WA3VJB]

Don't feel special, Mikey, they haven't answered mine, either.

1. Details of the ARRL policy established for the Region 2 Band Plan by the Board of Directors ahead of the Brazil meeting.

2. The basis, political authority, or other permission for Rinaldo to suggest any elements of the proposed plan, since the ARRL does not intend to comply with the plan.

3. The basis for the ARRL to endorse the plan if it does not intend to comply with it.

4. Other questions expressed.