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

[WQ9E]

Unfortunately there are not enough of us to make a real difference economically, if there were the simple answer would be a well publicized boycott of any manufacturer who continues to advertise in QST which of course wouldn't do any harm to CQ magazine either.  It is a shame what happened to the proud old ARRL and I am not that old an old timer having been first licensed in '74 at the age of 14.  I let my ARRL membership lapse a few years ago and then rejoined with a multi-year subscription and a contribution because of the good work Ed Hare had done in the BPL arena.  However, when my membership lapses this time it will be the last.  If someone were looking for a good idea of how to focus a magazine on newcomers with the intent of socializing newcomers into the "fraternity" and providing a good basis for technical learning the old Ham Radio Horizons provides a great example.  Since I aspire neither to be a "wacker" or adopt the CB mentality of "putting more fire in the wire" the new look of ARRL/QST is not for me.  Yes, it has been a rough day but living in the state of IL there is enough chicanery in our state government to keep me amused without any help from the diamond terrace group.

Rodger WQ9E

[WA3VJB]

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

Actually, Ed, you need to revise your perception of the state of affairs, because you're sadly out of date.

The bridge that you envision took place starting about 20 years ago, when AM began to be seen and pursued as a vintage or nostalgic endeavour. By 15 years ago, the mode and activity were increasingly well-regarded by the overall amateur population. In the past ten years, there was very seldom any of the old poison thrown around as the elders heard during the era when SSB was struggling for acceptance.

These days, it's bonafide and unquestionable that AM is one of the many enjoyable facets of the hobby. You can pick any such facet and find operators you would judge poorly.^*

AMers need no defense because of the mode used.  If you find their behavior questionable, that's a social problem. If you find technical shortcomings, it is probably actionable under existing FCC regulations.

It is not "curious" that no one has addressed your perceived problem (now into 5 pages), because you're one of the few who allow themselves to be put on the defensive, or lack the confidence to consider AM on an equal basis with any other mode in the hobby.
^*I happen to think contestors, on the face of it, have a presumption of being rude during an event, and an illegitimate feeling of being entitled to the entire band in order to behave that way.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Why not just get on the air and operate rather than throw stones? But since we're asking questions, I have a few.

What is/are the source(s) for the statement "blissful disregard of AM power and bandwidth maxima by many operators." Was this a poll or some other data gathering exercise?
How many is "many?"
What are the bandwidth limits to which you refer (hint, cite Part 97)?
What is the power level implied (or at least inferred by you) by the term "strap"?
What is the power level implied (or at least inferred by you) by the phrase "tall ship"?

Rant indeed.

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.  

[WQ9E]

Realistically, how many people running near the legal limit on sideband can measure their peak output with any degree of accuracy?  Even the vaunted Bird meters are specified at around 5% accuracy (when they are brand new, not beat up as they are by the time they are purchased by most hams) as I recall and this is for steady state and not PEP and any of the electronic computing circuits are making assumptions about the waveform with their reported peak readings.  One way to ascertain the true peak output would be to first use a meter with calibration traceable to a known standard at the frequency AND power output of interest and use this along with a scope (preferably storage or variable persistence) to calibrate the scope display to a specified level at 1500 watts "carrier" and then use the scope display to determine the actual peak output.  How many stations actually do this?  I think the answer is that would be a null data set.

I do have one "large" amplifier I built several years ago which certainly could exceed the legal limit if you wanted to drive it like it was on the CB band but I overbuilt it simply so it would stand up to contest and/or high level AM usage without difficulty.  It uses 3 parallel 4CX800 tubes in grid driven AB-1 and the power supply is built around a Dahl 2.5KW CCS rated transformer with 56 uf of filter provided by several oil filled caps in parallel.  I can also safely say that the only time it was run at over the legal limit was into 4 Heathkit Cantennas in series/parallel during testing.  With good antennas I have never felt the need for more power and I load it to 2300 watts INPUT using accurately calibrated plate current and voltage meters which are far more accurate than trying to measure output and I feel pretty sure that I am not achieving more than 65% efficiency nor exceeding the legal limit.  Depending on which meter and what band I am on I have seen output ranging from 1100 watts to 1800 watts ACCORDING to the watt meter.  One of the more novel metering approaches I recall seeing was someone used 1 100 watt bulb judged to be running at exactly 100 watts from a metered AC source, a second bulb was driven by the transmitter and an optical probe was used to compare the brightness of the two.  Perhaps we need some 1,500 watt fast response light bulbs.

The only piece of true AM gear that I have which could exceed the current legal limit is my Johnson Desk KW and I run it with reduced drive and loading so that the actual plate input to the final is 500 watts and with expected efficiency of 70 to 75% it is running at about the current legal limit.  When rebuilding the Desk KW I did correct the meter shunt for the cathode current meter and I added a separate external meter for screen current so I can accurately calculate the actual plate input level.  I will admit being tempted to load the Desk KW up as it was designed but I have yet to run into the occasion where 3 db would actually make a difference (well maybe trying to break the "pileup" on the first Wednesday AM night) and I have the satisfaction of staying legal and increasing the longevity of the finals.  Yes, I know there is some impedance mismatch running at this level however the 810 modulators have plenty of reserve since the required audio amount is also reduced.

Just my thoughts from a rule follower.  It must be my German heritage because as a Novice back in '74 I dutifully logged every CQ call....

Rodger WQ9E
 

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

And my guess is that the vast majority of hams and AMers are in the same boat as you Rodger. The idea that AMers are at fault for other messing with us because many run illegal power is absurd. Just because someone is loud on your receiver does not mean they are running illegal power. Do the math. For someone to be 10 dB louder than the legal limit means they would need to be running 15 kW.

[WD8BIL]

Just because someone is loud on your receiver does not mean they are running illegal power.

Exactly Steve. Just witness Tron smokin' the wires on his phased array with a barefoot Ranger. Many nites that setup is 9+40 here in the midwest.

Then there's 54 watt Fred with his loop antenna. Always a strapping signal here.

[k4kyv]

I think hams paid a lot more attention to the 1 kw DC input limit than they do to the p.e.p. bullshit.  I'd say the majority of to-days hams don't have a clue what p.e.p. is, let alone how to accurately measure it.  Reminds me of kids in class insisting on an obviously wrong answer to a maths problem because "that's what the calculator says".  Unless you are working into a 50-ohm non-reactive  load, a wattmeter won't read accurately.  Most wattmeters are basically rf voltmeters, calibrated in watts when working into a known purely resistive load.

With the new power limits, the FCC admitted as much, and deleted from the  rules the old requirement that amateurs possess accurate means for measuring their power.  In the R&O they went on to state something to the effect that hams can determine their power output by "means other than accurate measurement", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I run my final at about 700 watts DC input.  By the time you take into account the efficiency of the PA, the losses in the tank circuit, and the loss in the feedline out to the tower, then the losses in the remote antenna tuner, the carrier output to the antenna is about right, according to the rf ammeter and the table of antenna impedance measurements I recorded with the General Radio bridge when I first built the antenna system.  The only thing I worry about with modulation is keeping the audio clean and within the limits of overmodulation in the negative direction and flat-topping in the positive direction.  I have about zilch concern over where an occasional high amplitude peak may reach, because the vast majority of my voice peaks are far below that, even with the broadcast compressor and peak limiter in line.  To achieve more with analogue equipment would require driving the audio into clipping and generating a mushy, crappy sounding signal.

To make any real noticeable difference at the receiving end, you would need to run 3 kw or more of carrier power on AM.  OTOH I routinely hear slopbucketeers bragging about their "two-holers" and "three-holers" pushing their "gauge" all the way to the right, with their trashy sounding signal,  consisting of at least 50% blower noise.

If I had a Johnson KW or Collins KW-1, I would probably just run it in the normal fashion as recommend by the factory.  Many hams have an overly-optimistic notion about their output power.  I recall in one of their restructuring proceedings back in the 70's, even the FCC estimated that a typical ham transmitter delivers to the antenna a total efficiency of 50% of the DC input at best.

[KA1ZGC]

I just don't understand why the perception of "the IARU is out to get us", any more than I understand why the assumption that this bandplan will be cast into regulation when no other IARU (or anyone else's) bandplan in history ever was.

Nobody has been able to directly answer that question. All I get in response is "well, yeah... but what if they do it anyway?".

This, from the very same people that piss and moan about the dumbing down of ham radio. Well, the "dumbing down" is the result of DE-regulation. You'd have to be an idiot not to notice that the FCC is DE-regulating everything in sight.

The FCC band expansion is a sign of the upcoming regulatory trend, not the IARU bandplan. For the FCC to codify any part of the IARU bandplan would be for the FCC to add regulations that only they can enforce, which the FCC has said in countless rulings they are not going to do.

The bandwidth petition: DENIED, the madatory bandplan petition: DENIED, and the FCC stated quite clearly that those were the reasons for denying them. Go back and read those rulings again if you don't want to take my word for it.

The FCC is under congressional mandate to operate in the public interest. Spending taxpayer money on measuring my frequency, amplitude, and bandwidth is not in the public interest any more than the FCC's own interest.

One answer I got last night was "well, the IARU reports to the ITU".

So what? When's the last time the ITU cared about the inner workings of the IARU, or even ham radio in general? When's the last time the ITU took an IARU bandplan and said to its member nations "thou shalt comply"?

That's not what the ITU does. Even if they did, there are a number of standards the ITU has adopted over the years that the FCC has either outright rejected or completely ignored, and has every right to.

Anyone honestly beleiving the FCC will automatically cave in to the ITU is only slightly less paranoid than someone beleiving they'll automatically cave in to the IARU, but is still a poor student of history and is overlooking or ignoring the politics surrounding this. That's a bit like beleiving that a sitting president of this country will automatically cave in to the United Nations. That doesn't happen either, and you should be thankful!

All the aforementioned paranoia is an offshoot of the paranoia I mentioned at the top of this post: that "the IARU is out to get us". This talk of "Barrrrr... they're clearing the way to make everything all-digital" or "they're clearing the way to make everything all-sideband" or "...all-appliance", or all-whatever; is putting things on very high horses indeed.

Now, I know a few of you automatically smell a conspiracy around every corner, but doesn't it make just a bit more sense to conclude that the IARU is simply ignorant of AM activity? Isn't it a bit more rational to conclude that one doesn't understand a mode they don't experience first-hand?

Hell, most of these people probably don't even operate, let alone operate AM (most people in beauraucratic roles involving ham radio seldom actually get on the air), so why anyone would expect them to consider each and every single mode in existence is a bit of a mystery.

I'm sure I'll get a bunch of replies from people totally misunderstanding what I'm writing (or taking one sentence/paragraph completely out of context, or just not reading all the way through), but since this topic just won't die, I guess that won't hurt anything now.

The moral of the story: don't attribute to conspiracy what can be better explained by ignorance.

--Thom
Killer Agony One Zipper Got Caught

[Vortex Joe - N3IBX]

Well..... ifn any of their crap actually sees the light of day, the term "AM Gangsta" will have its place in reality. I, for one, will not stop using AM till they pry it from my cold dead fingers. This is America, for heaven's sake. (or is it quickly becoming AmeriKa, comrade)

Buddly,
         Count me in as one of those types who won't stop using it on the band(s) of my choice as well. I guess the "Kilocycle Cops" will be monitoring 160 and 40 Meters and some of the other No AM allowed bands looking for people to operate in that mode. Our so called Amateur Radio Brethren willing to turn us in..

What do these people who proposed these ridiculous rules have against AM in the first place? They're totally clueless about it's operation, and the people who use it.

The ARRL went against the IARU in the past regarding a 40M bandplan. Let's hope they have enough intestional fortitude to do the same when it comes to AM operation and vote against the IARU proposal. If they in fact vote in favor of it, perhaps we could get up a legal defense fund of sorts to have another group represent us.

Just my two cents worth.
Joe Cro N3IBX

[Tom WA3KLR]

Joe,

Good to hear from you. 

Are you home and free for a telephonium contact?

[Vortex Joe - N3IBX]

Tom,
       I'll be busy until about 2PM, and will be available for a telefonium corntact after then. Would appreciate talking to you OM!
Joe -IBX

[Tom WA3KLR]

I don’t think the IARU is out to get us.  As you say it’s probably mostly due to ignorance.  That‘s why I intend to write letters to the IARU Region 2 people and let them know how popular AM is here and how little of phone band is REALLY affected. Shame on me. It’s not paranoia, just effort. 

If I appear to over-react, it is my strategy to motivate others to get involved also.  To remain silent is irresponsible when an entity takes steps toward killing AM.  It’s much easier to defend an existing privilege than to do nothing and try to fight to regain it later.  As we have seen in the last year now, many of the rule-changing attempts come as “secret” surprises, understandably.

As far as I see, The FCC phone band expansion was not due to de-regulation, but a duty-bound response to the 2 petitions filed by the Communications Think Tank (RM-11305) and the ARRL (RM-11306).  These petitions were denied because of the popular comments filed against the petitions by concerned and involved Amateurs.  But the FCC did go to the trouble to change Part 97 to relieve congestion in the HF phone bands, one common and valid issue of the 2 petitions.

Anyone can file a petition for rule-making to the FCC at any time.  Shooting down RM-11305 and -6 was only a temporary measure.  The issues of bandwidth and new digital modes will not go away.  Ignorance is thinking these issues went away forever by December of 2006.

Yes I have been wondering how much on-air operating people like W6ROD, K1ZZ, W4RI, and WB3ERA actually do per week or month.

The conspiracy theories arise from the apparent lack of logic to the situation.  Most AM’ers I QSO with since the announcement of the band plan make essentially the same comment that they cannot understand the deliberate move by the IARU people to eliminate AM.  So add illogic to the list besides ignorance, paranoia and conspiracy.

So Thom, what is your reason WHY the IARU Region 2 issued a new band plan greatly reducing AM operations and in particular with respect to the fact that the new IARU Region 1 band plan did not?

[k4kyv]

We don't want to lose AM privileges by default.  I recall shortly after Docket 20777 came out, with its clear-cut proactive attempt to curtail AM, I attended an FCC Forum at a hamfest/ARRL convention held at the Statler-Hilton in Boston that year.  Johnny Johnston was not present, but his assistant, Joe Johnson showed up, along with a younger guy (don't recall his name).  I was talking with the younger guy about the Docket at the FCC booth before the forum, and he mentioned, "We're even getting comments in from people who want to run AM!"  He appeared surprised that anyone would have had even the slightest interest in AM any more, and seemed to be of the opinion that the mode had completely died out of ham radio and was still listed in the rules only as a remnant of a long gone era.

That was the same convention/hamfest where the young lady who spoke at the ARRL Forum stated that it was not ARRL's policy to outlaw AM, but to let it die a "natural death".  She went on to describe the League's policy as one of "benign neglect".

Once the comments started rolling in, opposing the idea of eliminating AM, the League and the FCC took notice that yes, hams were still interested in using the mode, and ultimately the bandwidth part of the proposal was abandoned.  I was not present, but I was told that at another hamfest forum after the final decision was made on 20777, Johnny Johnston spoke at the FCC Forum with a sour-grapes attitude, "We had a good proposal, but it was rejected because a group of amateurs want to keep on operating the same transmitters they have been using for the past 25 years."

I don't feel any immediate threat by the IARU band plan, but now is the time to put the damper on any potential gain in anti-AM momentum that could result if the bandplan is left standing unchallenged without comment.  After all, the undeniable fact is, a historic, internationally recognised, amateur radio society is recommending that AM be limited to two small segments in only one band below 28 mHz, and that severe restrictions be placed on transmitted bandwidth for all modes.

And not only is there the AM issue.  The amateur radio community at large has taken notice that the League's proposed concept of limitations by bandwidth , which was withdrawn after the consensus as reflected in the comments to the FCC was soundly negative, has so soon reappeared in a different form.

Whether or not the IARU will revisit the bandplan (after all, the meeting in Brazil is over), ARRL and the corresponding other national societies will have been once again reminded that the amateur radio community is concerned whenever the idea of any reduction in existing operating privileges is being entertained.  If the issue sparked no public discussion or debate, it would be assumed that the suggested new restrictions have the tacit approval of the amateur community at large.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

As far as I see, The FCC band phone band expansion was not due to de-regulation, but a duty-bound response to the 2 petitions filed by the Communications Think Tank (RM-11305) and the ARRL (RM-11306).

The original phone band expansion FCC approval came roughly 2 years before either RM-11305 or 306 were filed. They then sat on it for several years, then released the R&O with additional enhancements to the expansion.

So Thom, what is your reason WHY the IARU Region 2 issued a new band plan greatly reducing AM operations and in particular with respect to the fact that the new IARU Region 1 band plan did not?

Could it be that several voting member countries of Region 2 already have bandwidth restrictions even before the revised band plan was issued. Bermuda already has max. bandwidth of 2700 Hz and in Aruba, AM isn't even listed as an operating mode. You might want to review the rules and regulations of several countries in South and Central America that are also members of Region 2. Regulations there may not be as liberal as to what the FCC imposes on us here in the U. S.

[Tom WA3KLR]

My TS-430 is 25 years old now and I intend to keep on using it.

Call it frugal, but it's also the Green thing to do.  New rig production increases the Carbonium footprint.  Irb understood this but Dave Sumner doesn't.

[Ed Nesselroad]

Thanks to several of you for the patronizing, ad hominem responses to my post.  All I was trying to present was the possibility that the behavior of some AMers -- not most, not all, certainly not anyone on AMfone -- might have contributed to the way we are perceived by others.

Just raising the issue makes me the enemy?  Clearly, I am sadly out of step, if not out of date.  Heck, I think daylight savings time is okay, too.  

The AM community is obviously without flaw, otherwise we would not have so much time to cast stones.  

I do appreciate the suggestion to spend more time on the air.  Advice I'm pleased to take.        

[WD8BIL]

The original phone band expansion FCC approval came roughly 2 years before either RM-11305 or 306 were filed.

And would still be sitting there in oblivion had 11305 not been filed.

[Tom WA3KLR]

If some countries have more restrictive Amateur regulations than the band plan that is not a problem - a no-brainer.   So having a band plan that caters to the most restrictive countries and then expect all the other countries in the union to fall in line is totally absurd logic to me.

To argue to follow the bandplan of the less privileged seems silly unless there is truely interference on the bands.  I'm not aware of any of the other countries in Region 2 complaining of interference from the U.S. hams but that doesn't mean there isn't any interference from the U.S. hams.

Pete are you aware of any interference from U.S. hams to the other Region 2 countries?  (This is a fundamental reason for the IARU organizations.)

[WD8BIL]

It only stands to reason Tom, that the Hola Hola gang that hangs around the 3880 region receives some qrm from the states. We hear them too well to think the opposite doesn't exist.
 But your point is well made. To bring everyone down to the least common denominator only produces mediocity. And I'm not about to give up my freedoms and privileges for the sack of "fairness".

[k4kyv]

Heck, I think daylight savings time is okay, too. 

OH NO, now you've fired Don up to the max!

Like Jack, K9ACT, I don't pay any attention to it now that I  have retired and don't have to get up with the clock.  I keep my clock set on GMT year round.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

If some little rinky-dink countries have more restrictive Amateur regulations than the band plan that is not a problem - a no-brainer.   So having a band plan that caters to the most restrictive countries and then expect all the other countries in the union to fall in line is totally absurd logic to me.

To argue to follow the bandplan of the less privileged seems silly unless there is truely interference on the bands.  I'm not aware of any of the other countries in Region 2 complaining of interference from the U.S. hams but that doesn't mean there isn't any interference from the U.S. hams.

Pete are you aware of any interference from U.S. hams to the other Region 2 countries?  (This is a fundamental reason for the IARU organizations.)

Remember, in IARU voting, it doesn't make any difference if your country has 6 hams or 600,000 hams. You have 1 vote. If the country already has bandwidth restrictions on their book for whatever reason, why would they vote to make them less restrictive or make them more in line with the current U. S. plan. Maybe in the eyes of all these other countries, the fact that the U. S. has no bandwidth restrictions has finally pissed them off. Get a bunch of the Central and South American reps to support bandwidth restrictions and the U. S. comes off looking like odd-man in the group.

I have no knowledge of interference issues between U. S. and other Region 2 countries, but like interference issues between hams in our own country, I'm sure at times they do exist.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I still occasionally hear Spanish speaking AM ham signals that I presume are coming from Mexico, Central or South America but I don't speak Spanish, so there's no way for me to know where these signals originate from.

Mack 

On 75, I thought most of those stations were from Philly, Jersey, or Florida.

[k4kyv]

I doubt if the bandwidths of our signals causes amateurs south of the border much trouble.

I think at least some of the Spanish speaking stations down around 3815 are in Puerto Rico.  I have been able to make out a few KP4 callsigns.  But you don't have to go south of the border to hear Spanish.  Our local Lowe's now has all their in-store signs in both English and Spanish.  We have Mexican restaurants all over the place, and a new Puerto Rican restaurant just opened about 3 miles from here.

Even with our expanded phone bands, I very seldom hear Mexican hams on 75.  Cubans are inevitably EPW (extremely piss-weak).  Other than possibly in Mexico and Cuba, I couldn't see US hams causing anyone south of the border any problems.  So why should they be even the slightest concerned about our signal bandwidths?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I doubt if the bandwidths of our signals causes amateurs south of the border much trouble.

I think at least some of the Spanish speaking stations down around 3815 are in Puerto Rico.  I have been able to make out a few KP4 callsigns.  But you don't have to go south of the border to hear Spanish.  Our local Lowe's now has all their in-store signs in both English and Spanish.  We have Mexican restaurants all over the place, and a new Puerto Rican restaurant just opened about 3 miles from here.

Many, many retail stores now have bi-lingual signs. Many places road signs, traveler information, etc. are now posted in Spanish and English. I read somewhere, considering all the Americas, English is not the primary language.

Even with our expanded phone bands, I very seldom hear Mexican hams on 75.  Cubans are inevitably EPW (extremely piss-weak).  Other than possibly in Mexico and Cuba, I couldn't see US hams causing anyone south of the border any problems.  So why should they be even the slightest concerned about our signal bandwidths?

Maybe it's not US hams causing problems south of the border directly but with Spanish speaking stations north of the border trying to communicate with stations south of the border.

[w3jn]

Thanks to several of you for the patronizing, ad hominem responses to my post.         

ED, I honestly don't see any ad hominem attacks - there were several well written reubttals to your thesis, but I didn't see anything attacking you?

Don, several of us discussed "the keepers of the flame" recently at NEARfest, of which you are certainly one.  I for one thought AM was completely dead until the mid nineties.  In the 70;s and 80's back home in MN I never once heard an AM signal on the ham bands (other than foreign BC).

The community owes guys like you, Timmy, Uncle Willie, and many others a huge debt of gratitude for keeping the AM flame lit during the dark days.  Otherwise, the ARRL's perception of the death of AM may have even come to pass!