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

[Tom WA3KLR]

Read Dave Sumner's response to some Ohio e-mails below.  Folks it's obvious that the ARRL is certainly not a "flame keeper" here and will not be lending one iota of defense on the continuation of AM in the HF bands beyond the new IARU band plan. 
Wake up and smell the BS.
- - - - - -


"Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:47 PM
To: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
Subject: Emailing: Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008


Dave:

I have been corresponding with the Great Lakes Division Director
about the content of the recently adopted IARU Region 2 Band Plan.

After pointing out the limitations on the AM mode as depicted in the plan
he said he read it differently and had it corroborated by you.

I have gone over it many times but still come out with the same result.
It's not a complicated document compared to some of the FCC rules and regs
I have had to review over the years, and it is very direct in what it
stipulates.

The uproar among my contemporaries has to do with the restriction of AM
(the 6 kHz BW asterisk) to two areas of 80 meters and above 29 MHz, thereby
removing the mode from the remaining amateur bands.

The charts show a max BW of 2700 Hz on all bands and the aforementioned
"asterisk", denoting 6.0 kHz BW, is applied only to the above segments and
nowhere else.  The "all modes" label seems to imply that AM is permitted
on all bands, but there is no asterisk on the other bands to authorize
the wider BW.

Jim Weaver tried to make a separation between DSB with no carrier (DSBSC) and
regular AM with carrier, as if there was a difference in BW.  Of course there
is not.

Jim's statement that his view (of AM on all bands) was correct after
all, because it was verified by you, is puzzling to me.  We all have eyes...
why aren't we seeing the same things?

I know that the IARU band plan is voluntary and nothing will change
in the immediate future, but I'm concerned that the IARU influence may
affect other member countries and eventually my ARRL and even lead to
FCC NPRM's promoting the same guidelines.

I have heard a lot of "anti-ARRL" commentary due to the aborted "Reg
by BW" offered last year and it's similarity to the IARU plan.  I know,
of course, that the ARRL plan did not remove AM from any band, as
the IARU plan seems to do....

Aside from that, do let me know about your observations of the band
plan.  Do you read it like I and the others do?  You do have a front seat at the
IARU table, and undoubtedly know the content of the plan and what the
published chart states.

73,

Perry Ballinger  W8AU  (Life Member/50 yr)
..............................

Subject: RE: Emailing: Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008
To: <w8au@sssnet.com>
Cc: "Weaver, Jim K8JE (DIR, GL)" <k8je@arrl.org>

Hi Perry,

I was in Brasilia for the IARU Region 2 conference but did not participate in the committee that was tasked with updating the band plan. I was assigned to a different committee. So, I do not have firsthand knowledge of the discussions but I hope I can offer some useful background.

The three IARU regional organizations developed separate band plans decades ago. They have been very useful in providing voluntary guidance to amateurs, especially since most countries do not have the detailed subband regulations that we have in the US. They are reviewed and updated occasionally; the opportunity arises at each regional conference, usually held on a three-year cycle, but changes are not made at every conference. The last changes to the Region 2 band plan that I can recall were adopted in 1998.

In Brasilia the committee had three main documents to work from: the existing Region 2 band plan, a draft plan developed over a period of months by the Region 2 HF Committee, and the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005 after extensive work over a period of several years. The output document is modeled on the Region 1 plan, which has been in effect for two years and has not aroused any controversy there, with modifications to reflect regional differences. If you're interested you can view the Region 1 plan at
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf

Efficient use of the amateur bands is something the IARU and the ARRL have championed for decades, and for good reason: not only does it allow more amateurs to use our limited spectrum, it is also an essential element of our spectrum protection and expansion efforts. Every radio service is expected to make the most efficient possible use of their allocations if they expect to retain them, and it is a precondition for seeking additional allocations. The IARU and the ARRL can't accomplish what the amateur community expects of us at ITU conferences -- such as the one opening next Monday in Geneva -- if we are perceived as promoting inefficient spectrum use within the radio service we represent.

I cannot disagree with your conclusion that on its face, the new Region 2 band plan would appear to discourage (but not prohibit) AM operation below 29 MHz except in the asterisked segments of 75 meters. The Region 1 band plan takes a somewhat different tack, specifically providing for AM operation in the "all modes" sections of the bands as long as adjacent channel users are taken into account. I don't know if this option was considered by the committee, nor do I know whether there was any discussion of 160 meters or the frequencies on 40 and 20 meters where AM operation commonly takes place in the US. Most of the committee was made up of amateurs from countries with little AM operation, and I imagine their attention was focused on other issues. Everyone involved understands that US amateurs, almost uniquely, must observe FCC-mandated subbands and have less reason to refer to the voluntary band plans than their counterparts in other countries.

The bottom line is that while not perfect, the new band plan for Region 2 is a good guide for 90+ percent of amateur HF operation. There are some aspects of the band plan that US amateurs are unable to follow because the FCC regulations don't permit it. There are others where US practice is different, and we are free to continue to operate differently as long as we take others' interests into account. There are times when a particular phone band is so crowded that using twice the bandwidth you actually need is discourteous, but there are plenty of other times when using AM won't diminish others' use of the band. As but one example, there's certainly no reason why anyone should feel guilty about firing up on AM on the upper part of 160 meters.

There is nothing in the band plan that prevents anyone from continuing to operate AM. There are no ARRL proposals, or plans for proposals, to the FCC to restrict AM. What the ARRL does in the future is decided by the 15 volunteer Directors, of whom Jim Weaver is one, so he is in a better position than I am to address your concerns about the future. But I can tell you that based on more than 30 years of attending ARRL Board meetings, it is very difficult for me even to imagine an ARRL Board voting to propose or to support such restrictions.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ
- - - - - - -
...................................

My reply to him: (his text condensed from above)

To: "Sumner, Dave,  K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>
Subject: RE: Region_2_MF_HF_Bandplan_Annex_1_2008

At 11:16 AM 10/18/2007, you wrote:

Efficient use of the amateur bands is something the IARU and the ARRL have championed for decades, and for good reason: not only does it allow more amateurs to use our limited spectrum, it is also an essential element of our spectrum protection and expansion efforts.

I could not agree more.


I cannot disagree with your conclusion that on its face, the new Region 2 band plan would appear to discourage (but not prohibit) AM operation below 29 MHz except in the asterisked segments of 75 meters.

Thanks for confirming my observation... I couldn't get Jim to see the asterisks. :-) 
Maybe he didn't have his reading glasses on... ?


The bottom line is that while not perfect, the new band plan for Region 2 is a good guide for 90+ percent of amateur HF operation, and we are free to continue to operate differently as long as we take others' interests into account.

Other than AM I also feel that setting a max BW of 2700 Hz may limit experimentation.  Some digital modes already cover greater spectrum than that, and if "spread spectrum" is classified as to total BW in use, this experimentation would stop.


There are times when a particular phone band is so crowded that using twice the bandwidth you actually need is discourteous, but there are plenty of other times when using AM won't diminish others' use of the band. As but one example, there's certainly no reason why anyone should feel guilty about firing up on AM on the upper part of 160 meters.

I don't feel that AM should be considered as the "interloper" on any band.  In this day and age of suppressing discrimination, it would be unfair.  Although old technology, it allows home construction and resultant promotion of technical experimentation, something sadly lacking in today's amateurs.

Typically, today, AM operators have staked out spot frequencies on each band and consequently
do not occupy very much spectrum.  Discourteous activity can also be attributed to SSB operators who purposely crowd the AM spot frequencies in an attempt to be annoying without
being cited for malicious interference. 

I do not actively promote AM operation but use it only sporadically, and I would not deny anyone the use of the mode.


There is nothing in the band plan that prevents anyone from continuing to operate AM. There are no ARRL proposals, or plans for proposals, to the FCC to restrict AM. But I can tell you that based on more than 30 years of attending ARRL Board meetings, it is very difficult for me even to imagine an ARRL Board voting to propose or to support such restrictions.

But would they vote to reject a proposed FCC restriction?  :-) 

Thank you for taking time to reply in the supporting manner that you have.

73,
Perry
.....................

Great Lakes Div Dir response:

To: <w8au@sssnet.com>
Subject: RE: Region_2_MF_HF_Bandplan_Annex_1_2008

Perry,
 
Yes, I received Dave’s comments.  I’m glad he straightened out my error.  I told you I’m not the greatest technician in the world!
 
As to your question concerning voting against an FCC proposal to restrict AM, I most likely would vote to oppose this.  I won’t promise I would do this; however, it would depend on the situation at the time and any alternatives that may exist in such a proposal.  My best guess is the FCC will make no such proposal for at least quite a number of years in the future – if ever.  I’d think they would wait for AM to disappear from disuse before they would regulate against it.
 
I realize this is somewhat akin to a guy promising his girl that he will respect her in the morning, but it is the best we can do until we are faced with a specific situation.
 
Tnx for educating me a little further.  I’m first to say a Ph.D. didn’t make me all-knowledgeable!
 
Jim
 
Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division
5065 Bethany Rd.
Mason, OH 45040
E-mail:   k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 "
- - - - -

My thanks to Jim and Perry. 

Well there you have it from the horse's ///mouth.  The collective "actions" of the ARRL at the conference apparently is (IMO) that they need to represent the rest of the region rather than represent the U.S.

Have a nice weekend and please find some time to write feedback.

[Ed-VA3ES]

The response from Canada:
-----------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ve3iay On Behalf Of RAC
Sent: October 18, 2007 12:51 AM
To: Ed Sieb
Cc: Paul Courson
Subject: Re: IARU Region 2 update


Hi Ed,

I have no idea what the HF Band Plan Committee's final recommendations
are going to be. That's not in my bailiwick, because in Canada band
plans have no regulatory status. You'd have to ask the Committee, but
I don't suppose they would tell you before they are ready; I wouldn't
if I were them.

Anyway, the RAC band plan and the Region 2 band plan are both only
gentlemen's agreements. They have no legal force.

There is no question of "submitting". The Canadian band plans don't
"submit" to the FCC's band plans either. The HF Band Planning
Committee will make suggestions as to what it thinks good practice
should be, taking into account the IARU band plans in all three
regions (with more weight given to Region 2, of course), the US
regulatory limits, and current common practice, all according to their
merits and what kind of impact they are likely to have on Canadian
operators.

The suggestions will not make everybody happy, because that's
impossible - too many special interests chasing too little spectrum.
The RAC Board will be asked to endorse the suggestions, but that won't
somehow make them law. Some people will follow the suggestions and
others won't. The regulators will take no notice.

73,
Rich VE3KI
RAC VP Regulatory Affairs


On 10/17/07, Ed Sieb  wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> What is the current position of RAC  vis-a-vis the IARU Region 2 band plan
> that has recently been approved by the full
> IARU to take effect in January?   Are we  submitting to it's  restrictions,
> or are we going along with the  RAC Draft HF Band Plan (July 8, 2007)?  What
> is our (RAC's) status?
>
> vy 73,
>
> Ed Sieb,  VA3ES
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Courson
> Sent: October 8, 2007 8:15 AM
> To: VE3IAY; Ed Sieb
> Subject: IARU Region 2 update
>
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> I corresponded with you a while ago discussing updates to Canada's
> voluntary band plan, and the idea of making voice activities the
> category of "phone" rather than SSB.  Thank you for helping see to it
> AM was not unwittingly constrained in your terminology.
>
> Today I write to caution the RAC against any early adoption of the
> IARU Region 2 band plan that has recently been approved by the full
> IARU to take effect in January.
>
> There are several people from the ARRL who, for unknown reasons, have
> pushed through some elements of their group's failed bandwidth
> petition that had been presented earlier to the Federal Communications
> Commission. This petition drew overwhelming opposition and was
> consequently withdrawn by their group.
>
> The suspicion is that the League proponents of that plan have now
> pushed it through the IARU as a Region 2 band plan.
>
> There is likely to again be an opposition response to this move that
> hopefully will delay or forestall a bandwidth-based specification as
> it now sits at the IARU.
>
> Kindly delay any early moves to align Canada's band plan with the IARU
> Region 2 scheme since it may not end up the way it now looks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Paul Courson
> WA3VJB
>
>

[w3jn]

All of this is 100% crap and is to be ignored until someone defines "bandwidth" (-6 dB points?  -60 dB points?) and how to measure it.  I wish typical Hammy Hambone well in trying to measure "bandwidth" with his ricebox.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

A a 99% power bandwidth, or a spectrum mask, or.......

In other words, the writers of the proposal are somewhat brain dead!


Here's a funny one from Sumner's email

The three IARU regional organizations developed separate band plans decades ago. They have been very useful in providing voluntary guidance to amateurs, especially since most countries do not have the detailed subband regulations that we have in the US.

Emphasis added.

So let's add more detailed sub-band regulations. That will make it more better!

All of this is 100% crap and is to be ignored until someone defines "bandwidth" (-6 dB points?  -60 dB points?) and how to measure it.  I wish typical Hammy Hambone well in trying to measure "bandwidth" with his ricebox.

[WD8BIL]

I wish typical Hammy Hambone well in trying to measure "bandwidth" with his ricebox.

With or without my preamp on ?

[Tom WA3KLR]

A simple proven fact now: The ARRL does not represent the U.S. Amateurs.  The League has been hi-jacked.  The only reason to be a member of the League at this point is to vote for Directors who will vote against the re-election of Dave Sumner at the Board meetings until he is out. 

Yes we need to hone our bandwidth measuring skills.  Bandwidth is defined in the beginning of Part 97.  It is an Occupied Bandwidth description although the word "occupied" is not used.  Some modes have a BW number assigned now,  THey are digital modes.  So the framework is there, only a slight change to the rules to plug in numbers for other modes.

It does seem to me that the old spectrum analyzers can be used along with "Max Hold" and some correlating rule of thumb (X dB. down) to give a BW number close to the occupied bandwidth number the latest spectrum analyzer would give for SSB and AM measurements.

The "bandwidth" term in the IARU Region 2 plan is not defined.  If it is necessary bandwidth we have a chance,  if it is occupied bandwidth we are really screwed, this includes all analog phone modes, get the picture?

[Tom WA3KLR]

But I do agree that the mask is the best, it allows use of the older analyzers easily.  The occupied bandwidth measurement makes data below -27 db (ref) mostly insignificant.  It is good to be looking down 70 dB or even greater however, which a mask can do.

It is nice to have in our technical tool boxes the ability to come up with a good ballpark "occupied BW" number.

But if you ain't on 160 and 40, you ain't on 160 and 40.

[Tom WA3KLR]

The people who sold us out in Brazil are headed to Geneva Switzerland this weekend
for:

World Radiocommunication Conference 2007 (WRC-07) 
 
Geneva, Switzerland, 22 October-16 November 2007.

This has got to be Dave Sumner's lifetime dream coming true; headed into an ITU conference with an adopted IARU Region 2 band plan that curtails AM on HF, so fresh that most U.S. Amateurs have not heard of it yet.
 
The agenda of the conference is restricted of course to those with a TIES account.

http://www.itu.int/md/R07-WRC07-OJ/en

Any help out there?

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

You could pray that the Iranians finish up their nukes soon and decide to make an example out of the Swiss. Barring that, it's back to letter-writing and keeping vigilant. Closed conferences like this don't offer a lot of opportunity beyond contacting the individual members and perhaps finding one to take our side. I'd put my money on Iran getting there first.

That was quite some old buzzard transmission Wednesday evening, Tom! 

[w3jn]

It does seem to me that the old spectrum analyzers can be used along with "Max Hold" and some correlating rule of thumb (X dB. down) to give a BW number close to the occupied bandwidth number the latest spectrum analyzer would give for SSB and AM measurements.

Tom, I'd be willing to bet less than 1% of hams have a spectrum analyzer.  And even fewer would know how to make the measurement.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Mack,

I have finished my homework that I am going to do on this matter.  I sent out band plan response emails to IARU, ARRL and ITU people late this afternoon.  At this point it becomes a waiting game for actually a couple months perhaps to find out the outcome of the ITU-R conference.  We don’t know what the agenda is for a fact, but for one may involve more 5 MHz. channels yet, as is mentioned in the IARU international web pages on Spectrum.

Out of courtesy I will wait a day or so to post my response letter on the AM Forum.  I did get a reply from Dave Sumner already.  I should be seeing the ARRL Eastern PA Section Manager at the Sellersville hamfest Sunday morning.

Of course it would be nice for the IARU Region 2 to consider changing the band plan before January 2008.  There is time and value for other people to respond also with feedback.

[Vortex Joe - N3IBX]

Mack,

  I did get a reply from Dave Sumner already.  I should be seeing the ARRL Eastern PA Section Manager at the Sellersville hamfest Sunday morning.

Tom,
      What did Sumner say? Is he aware of the amount of people vehemently against the IARU proposal? PUULEASE query the ARRL Eastern section Manager if you see him at the Sellersville Hamfest and express how we all fell (for whatever it's worth). If I was able to make it on Sunday I'd be quite vociferous about it.

Best Regards,
                  Joe Cro N3IBX

[Tom WA3KLR]

The ARRL has a news item on the WRC-07 ITU Conference that starts in Geneva Switzerland Monday October 22.  My response letter went to most of the people listed in the top paragraph:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/10/19/101/?nc=1

Joe N3IBX,

I will be posting my letter here this afternoon.  Then I will post Dave Sumner's response.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Here is the e-mail letter I sent out late Friday afternoon to IARU and ARRL people.  Dave Sumner responded fairly quickly.  I must have caught him working on ITU conference last-minute details.  No one else has responded so far. 
- - - - - - -
Friday, October 19, 2007

Dear Sirs,

The recent IARU Region 2 Conference adoption of a new band plan for Region 2 is a very sad surprise at my home amateur radio station here in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. for several reasons.

I urge you strongly to consider revising the band plan before the plan takes effect in January 2008 in regards to the restrictions placed on AM operations.  Also the bandwidths stated are not defined.  The bandwidths are too restrictive regardless of the bandwidth term implied.  Occupied bandwidth would be the most restrictive and far too restrictive. 

The deletion of AM from HF operating privileges except for 80/75 meters and 10 meters essentially would ruin a large part of my Amateur radio hobby if the IARU band plan is carried out.

Here in the States, AM has been growing in popularity the last 5 years.  There is an Amateur magazine devoted to the old tube AM gear – Electric Radio.  The ARRL installed a new AM operating position a few years ago the League station W1AW.

I operate AM on 160, 80, 40, 20, and 10 meters.  I started to operate 160 meters AM all year round 3 years ago.  Primarily I restrict my 160 meter operations to just 1885 kHz.  This past year I have been surprised at all of the new AM stations that have appeared on that frequency.  My list of different stations worked on 160 meters AM is more than 170 and I stopped counting quite a while ago.
 
The latest generation of mass-produced HF transceivers on the amateur radio market from these manufacturers all include AM mode:
 
FlexRadio products
Icom
Kenwood
Ten-Tec
Yaesu.

I currently have 2 home-brew AM transmitter projects in the works; one is a state-of –the-art solid-state Class E pulse-width modulated 350 Watt carrier/1500 Watts PEP transmitter for 40, 80 and 160 meters, and the other project is an AM transmitter circa 1932 screen-grid modulated 50 Watt transmitter for 40 and 75 meters.  I also have a state-of –the-art solid–state high-performance 1.5 to 10 MHz. AM receiver project in the works.  As the new Class E transmitters are the standard service transmitter today for the AM broadcast band, the old tube broadcast transmitters being taken out of service are lovingly being acquired and restored to 160 and 75 meter operation.

Even so, the amount of AM on the HF here is not significant, as far as interference.  The 160 meter band is under-utilized most of the time with plenty of empty spaces.  Only during one or two big annual contests does the SSB activity fill much the band.  The phone band here on 80/75 meters is now 400 kHz. wide; plenty of phone operating  space.  On 40 meters the AM activity is low and is usually just on 7290 or 7295 kHz.  On 20 meters, there is almost no AM activity, but when it occurs it is on 14286 kHz.  On 15 meters, this band is always under-utilized and AM is extremely rare here even in the highest part of the solar cycle.  On 10 meters, this is a popular band for AM.  AM is usually found between 29.0 and 29.1 MHz.; there is plenty of phone space on 10 meters however.

So why the zeal to eliminate AM from the HF bands, as seen from the U.S.?  I am baffled by the surprise plan.

I am told that the new plan is modeled after the Region 1 band plan.  But the Region 1 plan does not place a restriction on AM as the Region 2 plan does!

Another thing I am told is that the plan is voluntary, but I don’t take this lightly.  I know that this plan will be submitted to the ITU in time and can become International treaty.  In fact, ARRL and IARU members are now headed to the ITU WRC-07 conference in Geneva Switzerland October 22 – November 16, 2007.

I note from the ARRL Newsletter #38 that the September conference, some members voted by proxy.  This means that the issues voted on were known in advance.  I am disappointed that we were not made aware of the changes in process ahead of time.  This is not a fault of the IARU but of our representatives for the U.S. – the American Radio Relay League.  Only about 1/5 of the licensed U.S Amateurs are members of the ARRL today. 

This new plan was in the works for a long time.  The U.S Amateurs have not heard of these developments before the plan was adopted.  There has not been proper democratic and representative responsibility by the ARRL.  Surely, it must be an international principle that the trusted representative body for each country is to act in a proper and ethical manner.  This cannot be the case with the recent IARU Region 2 meeting and therefore the adoption is invalid.

In the IARU Region 2 band plan chart, the bandwidth column is listed as “MAX BANDWIDTH”.  At the end of the tables is “Explanations; Bandwidths – The number in the bandwidth column always refers to “maximum allowed bandwidth”.  “Bandwidth” is not adequately defined.  There are many bandwidth terms in existence.  My concern is that when it is presumed to be “necessary bandwidth” now, down the road after perhaps ITU adoption, someone says, no, that is the “occupied bandwidth” and we are in a big mess.  The bandwidth numbers stated appear to be necessary bandwidth and should be defined as such.

The ARRL submitted a petition to the FCC a year ago called RM-11306 to change our FCC Amateur rules (Part 97) to regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode.  SSB was 3 kHz, AM was 9 kHz.   Ed Hare W1RFI, Lab Manager at ARRL tells me these bandwidth numbers in the ARRL petition were Necessary Bandwidth.  Our rules with respect to mode and bandwidth were not changed as petitioned by the ARRL due to many reasons in the large number of comments submitted to the FCC against the petition during the Comment period.  (The ARRL wanted to add digital modes to the HF phone bands by having the 3 kHz bandwidth.)

Now we see in the IARU band plan the listing of 2700 Hz. for SSB and 6 kHz for AM.  Even NBFM on 10 meters is to be bandwidth-reduced to apparently 10 kHz.  Again I am baffled by the need to adopt such even more restrictive changes.

If some countries in Region 2 have more restrictive Amateur regulations than the plan, so be it and that is not a problem.   But 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 voluntarily follow the band plan of the less privileged seems silly unless there is truly interference on the bands.  I am 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.  AM in particular is not a problem at all.  Please respect this and remember that at least 80 % of all licensed Amateurs in the IARU Region 2 union are U.S. operators with liberal HF AM operating privileges, enjoyed greatly by those who choose the AM mode for many reasons.

Respectfully submitted,

Thomas O. Bohlander,  WA3KLR
1950 W. Swamp Rd., Quakertown, PA 18951-2160  U.S.A.
FCC Amateur radio Extra Class license, first licensed in 1968. 
FCC commercial “General Radiotelephone Operator” License, first commercial license 1970. 
Occupation: electronics engineer.
Amateur radio interests: HF AM and SSB, operating vintage vacuum tube transmitters and receivers, and home-brewing receivers and transmitters.
- - - - - -
Dave Sumner's response:

Thomas, despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists, whatever the shortcomings of the new Region 2 band plan may be there are no "restrictions" on AM operation. The band plan will not ever be submitted to the ITU. There is no danger of AM operating privileges being deleted in the United States.

While you have made a reasonable inference from the fact that some member-societies held proxies for others that were not in attendance, to the best of my knowledge the report of the Region 2 HF Committee was not distributed in advance of the meeting. I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

As you have noted, I am about to head to Geneva and in the remaining time am trying to concentrate on the problem of securing a 5-MHz allocation for the amateur service. Let me make just one other observation, which is that you have properly distinguished between occupied and necessary bandwidth. Because the bandwidths in the plan are voluntary guidelines and not regulatory limits, there is no compelling need to specify whether they are occupied bandwidths or necessary bandwidths. However, I agree with you that in a regulatory context it would be important to specify them as necesssary bandwidths. And for what it's worth, I am no less baffled than you by the NBFM bandwidth calculation.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

[Tom WA3KLR]

I guess I am an aLaRmist, never been called that before.  But better to be an AM phool today than a SorrySideBander tomorrow.

Well, it's sad to think that the adoption of the new band plan with it's significant changes were first seen and voted on in one day?

And the same thing may occur at the ITU conference.  I guess this is the SOP at the high-level meetin's.  A good reason for being an alarmist.

I was reading the IARU site some more yesterday and they are working on improving communications among officers and committee people throughout the year.

So we can add a new item to Thom’s growing list:
Paranoia
Conspiracy
Ignorance
Illogic
Incompetence.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I wonder what will happen if and when Region 3 gets on board with the Region 1/2 revised band plan train.
Here's their current Region 3 "mode legend"; Note the Phone Section:

[Legends]

NB:   Narrow band modes including CW, RTTY, Packet and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

Phone:   Phone operation includes SSTV, FAX and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

WB:   Wide band modes including FM.

Satellite:   This segment should be kept clear of other operating modes.

EME:   Earth-Moon-Earth, Meteor Scatter, Auroral Scatter and other weak-signal.

Secondary:   At 7.1 to 7.3 MHz, amateur stations shall not cause harmful interference to stations of the Broadcasting Service.

On the International scene, U. S. amateurs have a uphill battle if the ITU gets an earful from many of these Region 1, 2, and 3 countries on band plan futures.

[Ed-VA3ES]

For what it's worth, here is the official Canadian announcement from RAC:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[RAC-Bulletin] RAC Bulletin #17 - Daniel Lamoureux, VE2KA,
appointed IAUR Region 2 Director

The most recent IARU Regional conference, the 16th General Assembly, was
held in Brasilia and wrapped up on Friday, 14 September, 2007.

A number of topics were addressed by the delegates and a synopsis of the
conference will appear in a future issue of TCA.  Radio Amateurs of
Canada was represented by Earle Smith, VE6NM, RAC president, and Daniel
Lamoreux, VE2KA, RAC VP, International Affairs.

Please join us in congratulating Daniel upon being re-appointed to the
position of Director, Region 2, IARU.
----------
Sent by the RAC Bulletins from RACHQ mailing list robot.
Send comments to: rachq@rac.ca

[Tom WA3KLR]

Region 3 phone 2 kHz bandwidth.  What are people thinking?

I sent an e-mail to a ham friend in Japan 2 days ago in regards to this bandplan business.  He hasn't responded yet but when he does, I will ask about the 2 kHz. bandwidth.  And we always thought those narrow Japanese filters were for DX and corntesting.

[K4QE]

K1ZZ's response to Tom's letter reeks of condescension.  It makes me ill.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

K1ZZ's response to Tom's letter reeks of condescension.  It makes me ill.

  What letter are you reading? I see nothing that "reeks of condescension" in his response shown earlier.

[K4QE]

K1ZZ: "...despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists..."

Sounds pretty condescending to me...I guess I'm just one of the alarmists.

I've had more than one ham who has heard about this "recommendation" express their concern about it.  Guess they are all alarmists, too.

I think it is the responsibility of an organization that is claiming to represent the interests of the US ham community to at least gather some sort of input from them (ARRL members or not) before voting to adopt a "recommendation".  I am a life member of the ARRL, and I received no request for any such input whatsoever.

[Vortex Joe - N3IBX]

Just my two cents worth: I believe the executive board of the ARRL have been aware of this for sometime. K1ZZ made it out to be as if he just found out about the proposal a few days ago. Call me skeptical, but I think not.

Also, Tom, I don't think you or anyone else who has responded here would classify as an alarmist. Realist, yes. We're just fighting for what we believe in and skleptical when a major player in the ARRL acts like he just discovered the little "clause".

Why should we be skeptical? I for one, hang my hat on 160 AM, and spend most of my time there. Telling me I couldn't run my favorite mode on my favorite band would be like a leg or arm amputation. Would my radio enjoyment be curtailed? YES. Would I be angry if the ARRL, the organization I belong to to SUPPORT Amateur Radio would concur with the IARU? YES! Would I give up my membership? You BETCHA!

The above says nothing about the AM priviledges they want to do away with on 40 Meters and other bands.

I digress. The whole thing shouldn't even be considered.

Joe Cro N3IBX

[KC1XF]

This was news to ARRL (Dave Summer) also. Just like the CODE requirement and then out of the clear blue, No Code.

Perhaps to link the ARRL to a Country Western Band - Asleep at the Wheel....

Just too busy counting the $$$$,

Today's mail from ARRL arrived - Looking for donations for The Spectrum Defense Fund.

73,

Fred

[WA3VJB]

This was down at the end of one of Tom's posts, above.

Dave Sumner's response:

Thomas, despite the exaggerated fears of some alarmists, whatever the shortcomings of the new Region 2 band plan may be there are no "restrictions" on AM operation. The band plan will not ever be submitted to the ITU. There is no danger of AM operating privileges being deleted in the United States.

While you have made a reasonable inference from the fact that some member-societies held proxies for others that were not in attendance, to the best of my knowledge the report of the Region 2 HF Committee was not distributed in advance of the meeting. I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

As you have noted, I am about to head to Geneva and in the remaining time am trying to concentrate on the problem of securing a 5-MHz allocation for the amateur service. Let me make just one other observation, which is that you have properly distinguished between occupied and necessary bandwidth. Because the bandwidths in the plan are voluntary guidelines and not regulatory limits, there is no compelling need to specify whether they are occupied bandwidths or necessary bandwidths. However, I agree with you that in a regulatory context it would be important to specify them as necesssary bandwidths. And for what it's worth, I am no less baffled than you by the NBFM bandwidth calculation.

73,
Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

I laughed out loud reading it. Sumner doesn't have quite as much as Haynie, but everytime he utters one of these, he provides a bunch of quotable nonsense.

[W3SLK]

K1ZZ wrote, (as quoted from letter):

I did not see it myself until after the meeting (my responsibilities at the conference were in a different area).

How can a person who is the secretary for IARU Reg. 2 not see it until after the meeting? Folks, I was born during the day, but it wasn't yesterday!