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

[k4kyv]

I brought this up a year ago – the need for a regime change in the ARRL.  I said at the time that Dave Sumner has been in there a long, long time, too long. 

We have already seen another example of the kind of damage that can be caused when one person remains in charge for way too long.

John Johnston of the FCC retired in 1998 after serving for 26 years with the Commission, carrying out regulatory duties with the Office of Engineering and with the series of bureaus administering the private radio services (which includes amateur radio). Positions held included Deputy Chief, Spectrum Management Task Force, and Chief, Amateur and Citizens Division, later to be known as the Private Radio Bureau.  Beginning with Docket 20777 in 1976, and culminating in the AM power fiasco in 1990, many of us recall those years in which the FCC released what seemed to be a never  ending series of ill-conceived, poorly thought-out dockets that "happened" to contain language proposing to in some way restrict or curtail AM operation.

Emissions Docket. FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Docket 20777, that would delete entirely all references to specific emission types, such as Al, A5, etc. in the Amateur Radio rules. FCC proposes to replace the present provisions with limitations on the allowed bandwidth which an amateur signal may occupy in certain portions of the amateur bands. Four categories of permissible bandwidth are proposed. These are: less than 350 Hz; less than 3.5 kHz; less than 35 kHz, and 35 kHz or more. CW and RTTY emissions would fall in the less than 350 Hz sub-bands. SSB, FAX and conventional SSTV would be allowed in the 3.5 kHz or less sub-bands, and conventional AM and NBFM would fall into the 35 kHz or less category. The proposed table of authorized bandwidths would not allow bandwidths of greater than 3.5 kHz below the 28 MHz amateur band, thereby prohibiting use of double-sideband AM below 10 meters, Bandwidths of 35 kHz or greater would only be allowed on amateur  bands above 1215 MHz, thus eliminating fast-scan TV from the 420-450 MHz band. There are many other implications, both good and bad, to this proposal. Full text will appear in July QST.  Comments are due to FCC by June 23; ARRL has requested an extension of this due date to August 4.

From Jet Propulsion Laboratory Amateur Radio Club Bulletin, June 1976

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Surely the ARRL must know that this change will be very unpopular.  But there was no attempt to defend themselves about this in the newsletter.

By the way, my November QST came Friday.  So far no mention, probably too late of course for the Nov. issue.  I can't want for the December issue to read Dave's editorial, "It Seems to ME" I mean "It Seems to US" extolling the wonderful things that were accomplished at the IARU Region 2 Colombian conference.

I brought this up a year ago – the need for a regime change in the ARRL.  I said at the time that Dave Sumner has been in there a long, long time, too long.  It should be obvious by now Pete.  More on this later.

I suspect that since the Region 2 Executive Committee was still "working out some issues" in this revised band plan, the ARRL is holding back giving out info that may be incorrect. Whether we see an announcement in December or January from the ARRL, your guess is as good as mine.

As far as regime change, it's a simple process. Barring Sumner deciding to step down from his positions or retiring, all you have to do is convenience at least 8 of the Board of Directors not to re-elect Sumner to his positions and have an alternate candidate that is "more" suitable. But, you need to hurry; Sumner comes up for re-election to his positions at the January 2008 Board of Directors meeting.

Brief ARRL bio on Dave:
Active from the first as an ARRL volunteer, he joined the Headquarters staff in 1968 for the summer, became a part of the permanent staff in 1972, and was named Assistant General Manager four years later. He was named Secretary and General Manager in 1982, with a change in title to Executive Vice President in 1985 and the additional title of Chief Executive Officer in 2001.
Complete bio:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/pio/bios/officials/k1zz.html

[WA3VJB]

Thanks Don for posting that reminder.

Curiously, Johnny Johnston is now the national head of the Quarter Century Wireless Association. He responded favorably to an overture requesting that their national newsletter publish an article on "today's AM." That article will eventually be written and submitted for their group's consideration. You already are aware that there is an AM-Vintage Chapter of the QCWA, so our presence is already established.

With the IARU Region 2 proposal constraining bandwidth to 2.7Kc, perhaps it would be worth someone's trouble to provide a heads-up to the older demographic that makes up the membership of QCWA, warning them that much of the older SSB gear would not be in compliance with this voluntary band plan.

This could be combined with a suggestion they write to the IARU Executive Committee, as a group in a formal manner, or as individuals who support QCWA, and urge the IARU to revise its plan before it is implemented in January.

The FCC, with Johnston still at the helm, was convinced by 1977 that licensees did not want to substitute a bandwidth-based segregation of modes and activities for the longstanding, successful system of coordination we continue to have today.

That's why the ARRL's threatened bandwidth scheme was doomed from the start, and why it too, was ultimately defeated just as the FCC's proposal had been spurned 30 years ago.



I didn't find any comments from Pete CWA and others who've been vocal on here, back during the 20777 proceeding nor the more recent Petition from the ARRL. Let's hope there is participation among concerned licensees to make it known the IARU plan is not acceptable as a voluntary standard nor as a regulatory device.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I didn't find any comments from Pete CWA and others who've been vocal on here, back during the 20777 proceeding nor the more recent Petition from the ARRL. Let's hope there is participation among concerned licensees to make it known the IARU plan is not acceptable as a voluntary standard nor as a regulatory device.

Actually back during 20777, I really didn't give a hoot to what might be happening on or to the HF bands. The majority of all my amateur radio energies were focused on VHF and UHF type activities.The only time I can remember getting on 75 during that time frame was during Field Day.

As far as RM-11306 - My comments, four pages, were filed with the FCC February 3, 2006. Unless you're talking about some other petition
And I filed comments on the fictional RM-11305 too

[Tom WA3KLR]

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

[WA3VJB]

I had a nice conversation just now with one of the area directors within Region 2. I said that my chief concern is the apparent lack of consideration given to AM, and I raised no other points.

Key quotes that he gave me in response:
"There seems to be a movement to have us notice the problem."

"There definitely will be a revision."

"We will first start to discuss it at the Region 2 level."

And perhaps most gratifying:

"We are not there to impose anything. We're working for you. Tell us."

Which I now shall do via email as he requested.

On past filings  --

Apologies Pete.
I looked you up by your last name and spelled it wrong.

Tom, of course.

I'm puzzled by those who have NOT invested some of their time, and they know who they are.

The point I am trying to make is that writing on here is good to share thoughts and for getting folks stirred up, but the important part is to then communicate to the people pushing this crap on us.

I hope folks can find the time to send something to both the IARU and the ARRL stating point of view. If you feel like cc'ing that may help others put their thoughts together too.

A few years ago I went to the archives at a government agency and actually looked up the Comments filed throughout the Docket 20777 proceeding.

There were many many familiar calls and names in there, and each of the filings in those days consisted of one original hardcopy plus copies for each Commissioner, all mailed or hand-carried to 1919 M St. NW.

It is a wonderful upgrade to be able to file electronically on the FCC's website. Although it is not a regulatory body, it is too bad the IARU does not have a similar system to poll and collect comments from its constituents.

So, except for direct emails when an IARU actually lists one, it's back to the printed page, an envelope and a stamp.

Please take the time.

[Tom WA3KLR]

With the League performing the way it is, it appears that forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The league is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial, not beholding to advertising clients.

[WA3VJB]

I have always resisted the idea of trying to come up with a rival group to the ARRL.

NO one could have the historic stature nor the publishing revenue it takes to subsidize subscriber services as the League continues to do.

That said, the group now running the place in Newington has overstayed its welcome. It is time for the Board of Directors to show some spine and remove those people from selected administrative positions.

Sumner, Rinaldo are good places to start.

[W3SLK]

Tom said:

With the League performing the way it is, it appears that forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.

I've been advocating that idea for some time. I lack the organizational skills required for such a task. Have said that, I would assist in the birth of a new organization.

Paul said:

That said, the group now running the place in Newington has overstayed its welcome. It is time for the Board of Directors to show some spine and remove those people from selected administrative positions.

Sumner, Rinaldo are good places to start.

As I stated over on the AM reflector yesterday, I voted with my feet a number of years ago. Its tragic that the way it is right now, to have any say whatsoever in our hobby, you have to be long to an organization like the (be)League(d)

[WA3VJB]

The 2.7Kc bandwidth specification in the IARU Band
Plan for Region 2 came from ARRL Chief Technology
Lobbyist Paul Rinaldo at the committee deliberations
in Brazil, according to two IARU officials with
knowledge of the proceedings.

"That was an ARRL suggestion," one of these officials
told me in response to a question about where the
number came from. "They were worried that some people
were using it quite wider."

This person concluded the point by saying "It was Paul
Rinaldo who suggested."

So, you can take it from there.
Sumner is not in today, and Rinaldo has his answering
machine turned on.

When you reach either of them, please ask them to
explain their thinking.

[wa2dtw]

What about SPAR??

[Tom WA3KLR]

"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

[W1UJR]

Do we need a new club, or simply form a group of dissenters and former member of the ARRL?
Why not take your League dues and throw your support behind something which is currently established.

You already have this wonderful and storied organization - Radio Club of America
www.radioclubofamerica.org/history.php


And of course good folks at the Antique Wireless Association (AWA).
www.antiquewireless.org/index.htm


When it comes down to it, I joined as a Life Member of the AWA this year, rather than the ARRL, feeling that the group better represented my interests. I'm not quite ready to give up on the League, but it sure sounds like the leadership has some serious explaining to do.
A direct answer, in written form, from Mr. Sumner & Co. would really go a long way toward getting this out in the open.

Paul, you're certainly got the talent to write a informed and eloquent rebuttal, and then inquire of Sumner.
Why not invite him here to explain what is going on?


73 Bruce W1UJR

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/

[KF1Z]

"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/

so?.....
lots of things with the same initials..... never stopped anyone before.....

NEARFEST, for example, is quite a famous music gathering.... has been for years....

[k4kyv]

Interestingly, almost 10 years ago, the League attempted to get the FCC to enforce compliance with voluntary band plans.  Apparently, the FCC didn't go along with the idea, as nothing more was heard about it.

The ARRL also will ask the FCC for a declaratory ruling to put teeth
into the voluntary band plan concept. The League wants the FCC to
affirm that any operation that conflicts with established, voluntary
band plans and causes interference or adversely affects those
operating in accordance with applicable band plans ''is not good
amateur practice'' and would be considered a rules violation.

Scroll down to the 5th paragraph.

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

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/

so?.....
lots of things with the same initials..... never stopped anyone before.....

NEARFEST, for example, is quite a famous music gathering.... has been for years....

USARS trademark Reg. # 2749579 Status Active

NEARFEST name is not registered as a "trademark" or "mark" for anything

[KF1Z]

"Forming a new amateur radio organization is in order.  The League is very commercial and can’t possibly be expected to act without conflict of interests. 

A new organization would have to be non-commercial and not beholding to advertising clients."

I was thinking of maybe:

 U.S.A.R.S.

United States Amateur Radio Society

(THE U.S. society for Amateur radio.  It's a hobby for goodness sakes!)

USARS already exists:
http://www.usarollersports.org/

so?.....
lots of things with the same initials..... never stopped anyone before.....

NEARFEST, for example, is quite a famous music gathering.... has been for years....

USARS trademark Reg. # 2749579 Status Active

NEARFEST name is not registered as a "trademark" or "mark" for anything

yes pete... but the name mentioned was  u.s.a.r.s.      not the same as usars for trademark purposes........

but whatever...... hardly the point of the topic.

[WD8BIL]

The ARRL also will ask the FCC for a declaratory ruling to put teeth
into the voluntary band plan concept.

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

Isn't that oxyMORONic ??

[Tom WA3KLR]

Oh well, if necessary we can do something a little different.  I must have spent 10 seconds on the name while standing at the kitchen counter yesterday afternoon.  I sure do like the ring of sovereignty though.

A ham friend sent my 5 page e-mail on the IARU band plan on to Wayne Green.  Here is Wayne’s response:

"I haven't been paying much attention. It's about time to end AM anyway.
I liked the country list -- I've visited 33 of them so far -- plus
Navassa (twice).

Wayne".
- - - -

I've never been to Brazil.  The closest I've gotten to it is Cape Cod.

I will be starting to work on my letter to the IARU today.

[k4kyv]

A ham friend sent my 5 page e-mail on the IARU band plan on to Wayne Green.  Here is Wayne’s response:

"I haven't been paying much attention. It's about time to end AM anyway.
I liked the country list -- I've visited 33 of them so far -- plus
Navassa (twice).

Wayne".

I think he's pretty much out of the loop these days.  That was becoming obvious the last few years he published 73. 

He has had that same attitude regarding AM for at least the past 40 years.  As I recall, sometime in the 60's he submitted one of the many petitions the FCC has received over the years, requesting to delete AM from the ham bands.

OTOH he used to say that if hams had converted over to DSB suppressed carrier, combined with the Costas synchronous detector, it would have conserved more spectrum space than SSB.

Contacting him on this issue was a waste of time.  It would do about as much good as forwarding a copy of that e-mail to Richard Nixon or Britney Spears. 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

but whatever...... hardly the point of the topic.

Ya, like a lot of things

[Ed Nesselroad]

Curiously absent from this discussion -- now on to 4 pages -- is any mention of the remote possibility that some of the continuing anti-AM regulatory rubbish might result from blissful disregard of AM power and bandwidth maxima by many operators.  Terms like strap and tall ships hint at the pride of a scofflaw.  Does the AM community have any responsibility for the desire of non-AMers to push us off into a tiny corner? 

Are there meaningful compromises or new ideas we might propose to bridge the divide?

Or is the reactionary posture as fundamental as, "Isn't it funny, isn't it true, the people you don't like don't like you?"

There are more of them than there are of us.  And the ratio changes more in their favor every day.  Surely, with all the intelligence present in the AM community, there's something more we can do than rant.   

[W9GT]

Believe it or not Ed,  It is quite possible to "strap" or have a "tall ship" signal on AM and operate within legal limitations.  I would venture to say that most of us do operate legally!  Those who don't will have to worry about their own house.  Don't lump us all into that category!!  Likewise, do not assume that it takes illegal operation to have a commanding signal on the band. 

73,  Jack, W9GT

[KC1XF]

Mack,

This Swamp Yankee see's the same thing it's all about the MONEY. Equipment Manufacturers, big advertisers in our ARRL rag, yep it's all about the money.

My feelings are existing MODES should not be interfered with, if they want new one's go ahead and add them. Let us choose to use them if we like.

I don't push anyone to use CW, AM, SSB, Digital or anything, I like AM and CW, I don't have any problem finding someone to converse with. This is a HOBBY and the ARRL, Equipment Manufacturers, and Lobbyist ought to leave the POLITICS out of the equation. They would like to know what the masses enjoy, but unfortunately they don't have a clue.

Whoever thought gear built 50 60 years ago sounds so good today. Alot of TLC and maintenance, technical know how and a love goes into each one.

73,

Fred