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

[WA3VJB]

I've been getting responses all in essence, don't worry about it.  It doesn't affect you.

OK, so it should be fairly easy then for the two heavyweight players in Region 2 to remove themselves from making suggestions or issuing statements of support for the plan, since that would affect licensees in the U.S. and Canada.

We need formal statements, on the record, by those who represent Canadian and U.S. licensees at the IARU, stating their opposition to having the Region 2 plan applied to North American amateurs.

That would end the controversy and we all can move on.

[wd8das]

Various correspondents wrote:

>What chart are you looking at?? On 40 meters,
>CW is allowed from 7000 to 7300 KHz     
and
>Steve - Please show me where it states this.

I am referring to the new IARU Region 2 bandplan section for 40m.  I should not have used the word "allowed" - sorry about that, that was too strong.  But my point is that the bandplan expects CW to happen in the lower 30 kHz of 40m, rather than the lower 150 kHz as has been the case for some time.

Perhaps my posts on this topic are unwelcome - I certainly have received a lot of hate-mail and name-calling off-list about it.  I guess I haven't learned - I keep getting surprised by hams.  I keep mistakenly thinking they are all my friends, or at least open to a discussion.

I apologize if my concern about this has splashed over onto those who don't care, or support the bandplan.  I thought it was important enough have a discussion about it before it happens, especially here on a couple mailing lists for people interested in vintage equipment and modes.

I certainly hope it comes to nothing.  But I suspect this bandplan will become a source of friction and upset among hams in the years to come. 

One final point:  Compare the old IARU Region 2 bandplan from 1988

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html

to the new one 

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

and notice how the current one matches much better how we use the bands now, and how the new one is very different.

Steve WD8DAS

[K1MVP]

Perhaps my posts on this topic are unwelcome - I certainly have received a lot of hate-mail and name-calling off-list about it.  I guess I haven't learned - I keep getting surprised by hams.  I keep mistakenly thinking they are all my friends, or at least open to a discussion.

I apologize if my concern about this has splashed over onto those who don't care, or support the bandplan.  I thought it was important enough have a discussion about it before it happens, especially here on a couple mailing lists for people interested in vintage equipment and modes.

I certainly hope it comes to nothing.  But I suspect this bandplan will become a source of friction and upset among hams in the years to come. 
Steve WD8DAS

Steve,

First,--I want to "commend" you on your website and articles you have published,--I for one really
have enjoyed "browsing" your site and have a couple of projects that are in progress that were
"inspired" by your articles,--the dual 807 breadboard transmitter, and the tube version of the "tuna
tin two",--good stuff.

As far as "speaking out" on these "issues", you have every right to do so, and just because the
"status quo" does not like it,--well that is their problem.
Your logic makes a lot of sense to me,--but many who have other agendas do not want to hear
"logic", IMO--they just "want what they want", and if they don`t agree they resort to "name-calling"
and belittling that person.
                                                       
You have "taken a stand" because you care about the future of HR, and there is an old saying,--
"If you don`t stand for something, you will fall for anthing"
I for one do not, do not believe you have anything to apologize for,--you are expressing your opinion,
and you have every right to do so.

                                                       73, K1MVP
 
P.S., As far as being a soruce of friction and upset among hams,--there are many other issues that
       have also contributed to this "division" whithin ham radio over the past 20 years, of which I
       am sure you are aware of.

P.P.S, expressing "no opinion" or "silence" on an issue also "says something", IMO     
   

[k4kyv]

..I am referring to the new IARU Region 2 bandplan section for 40m.  I should not have used the word "allowed" - sorry about that, that was too strong.  But my point is that the bandplan expects CW to happen in the lower 30 kHz of 40m, rather than the lower 150 kHz as has been the case for some time...

One final point:  Compare the old IARU Region 2 bandplan from 1988

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_HF_Band_Plan.html

to the new one 

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

and notice how the current one matches much better how we use the bands now, and how the new one is very different.

To clarify, the "current" one is the old one.  The "new" one goes into effect 01JA08.

I notice there is an AM calling frequency listed on 7275, even though the maximum bandwidth listed for 40m is 2700~.  Wonder if ARRL will move their suggested AM calling frequency from 7290 to 7275? 7290 has now become the "Region 2 Emergency centre of activity 3".  I suppose the No Traffic Net will have that to use in their dispute with Ashtabula Bill and other AM'ers on 7290.

All modes,
Region 2 Emergency centre of activity 2: 7240 kHz,
SSB QRP centre of activity 2: 7285 kHz,
image centre of activity 2 7165 kHz,
AM calling frequency 7275 kHz,
Region 2 Emergency centre of activity 3 7290 kHz

As for CW, I see 7000-7035 reserved for cw, with 7000-7025 given priority for dx (DX window) and 7030 as the "QRP centre of activity".  In the "reserved-for-cw" section, that  doesn't leave much for general cw ragchew type of activity, or for non-Extras in USA, although 7035-7040 includes cw with "all narrowband modes".
Above 7035, cw is expected to share space with "digimodes" and 7038-7043, with unattended automatically controlled data stations.

BTW, any experts out there who can tell me what is going on with Adobe Reader?  Sometimes I am able to open a pdf document such as the bandplan, click on "select" in the toolbar, highlight the text I want to  copy, right click on it, and a menu comes up with the option "copy to clipboard".  At other times,  as soon as I release the left clicker, the highlighting changes from black to blue, and right clicking undoes my highlighting with no option to copy the selected text.  That happened the first time I attempted to copy the excerpt from the band plan document, but later on I went back to it and it let me copy.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

There's a nasty exploit out for Adobe Reader. Suggest you download the latest version or patch ASAP. Or use a different readder.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

In regards to Steve's comments and the ongoing "dialog"  on the revised IARU Region 2 band plan, the link below now shows a Region 2 band  plan dated October 16, 2007. The original posted plan was part of the committee's submitted report. I didn't go through it line for line  but it looks similar to what they had before. For definitions of the Legends, "narrow modes" wide modes", etc. go to the bottom of the chart. It clearly shows CW is allowed anywhere in Region 2 from 7000 to 7300  Khz. However, exclusive CW (i.e. no other mode except CW) is from 7000 to 7035 KHz. I may be wrong but I believe that was Steve's point.

The 2700 Hz maximum bandwidth stated for most of the rest of the HF bands, with the AM exceptions again noted at the bottom of the chart, is still an issue. Of course, if you were in Region 3, the maximum bandwidth, as stated in their current band plan, is 2000 Hz.

Here is the latest posted revised Region 2 band plan, dated October 16, 2007:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

[Tom WA3KLR]

This topic is now the all-time leader in number of posts – surpassing
“Gas prices are not encouraging hamfest attendance! How About Alternative Fuels?” with 177 replys.  This is a testament to the importance of the issue.  It’s not on the top 10 Reads list yet, but over 3490 reads in a few weeks is very significant.  (#1 is the Marconi net topic with 11,101 reads!)

I want to update all of you on response to my 2 page letter which was posted back on page 7.   I sent out my letter to a total of (18) IARU and ARRL e-mail addresses and 1 to a generic ITU e-mail address at the relevant ITU section.  This was last Friday afternoon.  The only person to respond to me was Dave Sumner.  Dave responded Friday afternoon yet as he was preparing for the ITU conference.  The initial response from Dave is also posted on page 7 after my letter.

My letter to the ITU went out before Dave’s initial response to me.  In that initial response, Dave said “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.”

Yesterday I received an angry (word choice?) e-mail from Dave on an apparent inquiry that would have been made by ITU people to him (or IARU/ARRL) at the conference.  So apparently my letter to the ITU which has an additional preface about an un-representative IARU Region 2 band plan adopted just before the ITU WRC conference was received, passed along and investigated by ITU people.  I have had no communications back from the ITU at all. But Dave was understandably ticked at me yesterday to find that I had asked the ITU to look into this matter of the whirl-wind sequence of events that the “new IARU Region 2 band plan adopted at that (IARU) conference has been quite a surprise to many U.S. Amateur operators”. “Most U.S. Amateurs still do not know of the new adopted plan.” “The U.S. Amateurs have not been properly represented in this significant change to the IARU Region 2 operating band plan.”  (Quotes are from my preface in the ITU version of my 2 page letter.)

On one hand I didn’t like sending out a letter like this to the ITU, but I felt it was necessary.  I also knew that I may wind up looking like a fool but also I could not live with myself if I sat back and did not do it.

So ladies and gentlemen, the IARU, ARRL, and the ITU are definitely aware now of our worst-case scenario concerns of this new IARU Region 2 band plan and the ITU WRC-07 Conference, and it’s unknown agenda.    At this point in my opinion, further contacts to the ITU from other Amateurs will serve no useful purpose.  We should just wait and see what develops; in regards to ITU aspects.

[WA3VJB]

Dear Friends, the updated HF band plan can be found in English at:

http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-cont....n-e.pdf


 The version 1 circulated before contained some omissions, like the absence of a designated AM activity frequency on the 20m.
73

Reinaldo, YV5AMH

Reinaldo is the Secretary for IARU Region 2

Thank you Reinaldo for the update.
Are further revisions possible ?

--Paul/VJB

Key shortcomings:

• The latest plan contains no support for AM on 160m.
• There is no mention of AM as a mode on 75m.
• No support for AM on 15m.
• No discussion to support suggested bandwidths.

[k4kyv]

NU9N AM & ESSB Hi Fi audio news editorial: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan November 2007

http://www.nu9n.com/news.html

[Tom WA3KLR]

Mack,

Dave was mad because last Friday he sent me the e-mail saying the IARU band plan would never be submitted to the ITU.  Then Monday or Tuesday ITU people must have come to him at the ITU conference with my e-mail about the IARU Region 2 band plan adopted that does not represent us.  I sent out the e-mail to the ITU before he first responded to me.

I sent Dave another reply after his angry e-mail, “curt” as he calls it, explaining the timing and that I only sent the one e-mail to the ITU and had no other contact or any plans of other contact with the ITU.  No doubt my sort of e-mail to the ITU is embarrassing to the IARU and ARRL.

Dave’s response then to my explanatory reply was greatly mellowed.

The lack of proper notification of the new band plan in the works before the IARU Region 2 conference and the voting for it by the ARRL is a valid complaint at any rate, regardless of whether or not the band plan would somehow get into a legislative track in the ongoing ITU conference (if even possible).

[wd8das]

Apparently there are now two IARU Region 2 bandplans posted...

> http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

> http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

Interesting... and the later one, dated a couple weeks after we started
contacting officials, is somewhat more liberal with AM...  not good enough, but better.
 
I'd say our efforts are beginning to have an effect.  Or they are
putting some extra info out there to throw everyone off balance.
 
Steve WD8DAS

[WA3VJB]

Non-ARRL delegates in IARU Region 2 have been making good on their promise to revise the band plan taking effect in January. 

Steve and others have posted the first of the revised plans.

Within the ARRL, the club that represents US licensees at the IARU, the Atlantic Division director is preparing to consider a Motion he would offer at the League's board meeting in January.

Although that would be after the IARU plan takes effect, Bill Edgar, N3LLR indicates the League's people could vote to send a letter to the IARU acknowledging AM to some greater extent.

I was accused of having an attitude in expressing to him my frustration that individuals out here have to clean up from a mess made in Brazil by ARRL representatives.

Yet, as you can see from the response among non-League IARU personnel, there are receptive ears at the international group, who are willing to bypass the burdensome "League" process and the aftermath of the ARRL's failure to support AM during the IARU proceedings.

I again recommend contacting the non-US delegates in Region 2, and express your support for the revisions needed to support AM in the band plan taking effect in January.  They are still tweaking that plan, which involves other, non-AM matters as well, but wave the flag, won't you ?

They're good folks, I have found, with none of the intransigent, anti-AM defensiveness found within League-types.

[Vortex Joe - N3IBX]

NU9N AM & ESSB Hi Fi audio news editorial: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan November 2007

http://www.nu9n.com/news.html

Don, I particularly like when NU9N states: "Amateur Radio is an experimenters hobby. It should be left that way with as little government intrusion as possible"!

This is the main reason why Amateur Radio in the United Sates flourished in it's infancy, and in later years to come. American Amateur Radio was the harbinger of development in the early broadcast radio industry, VHF work, microwave, etc all because we were left to our own devices to have a free hand at experimentation so new ideas and products could be developed.

Lets's face it, other than AM, some QRP/PW ops and some of those who dabble in the digital modes, what factions within our ranks really experiments and builds things?

I'm not being "jingoistic" here, just that I believe that even though the IARU plan is not law in all countries, those without sufficent knowledge may want it to be.

If our own organizations won't defend our priviledges, it's up to us to defend ourselves by communicating our concerns to them. In the past, the ARRL has always been there for us.
What Tom, WA3KLR and others here have been doing is communicating our concerns to continue to do so.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Yes, anyone can contact anyone in the world.  That has been my philosophy for many years.  That’s why I didn’t hesitate to contact the ITU. 

With e-mail it is very convenient and very low cost.  The investment is just your time. 

The folks at the ARRL need to remember this and so there is accountability by our direct communications with these other organizations.

[W3SLK]

Well Tom, all I can say is "Well done and Thank you!" I'm sure everyone on this board appreciates the effort you have put forth.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Great work Tom. Much appreciated. I find it strange that a band plan would be worked up anf then not submitted or presented. Hmmm...

(#1 is the Marconi net topic with 11,101 reads!)

LOL

[WD8BIL]

This topic is now the all-time leader in number of posts –

I don't think so Tom. The Ted Nugent thread went 20 pages !!

Kill it n' grill it !!!

[WD8BIL]

Check this out Wigman !!

Can you say HIJACK !!!

[Tom WA3KLR]

Thank you OMs and you are welcome.

Bud, I remember the deer-hunting topic now that you mention it, but the "More Stats" feature that appears at the bottom of the home page after you sign in shows this topic as #1 now.  I guess the Ted Nugent topic was completely deleted from history.

Now back to business, we need to tally which ARRL Division Directors are responding to people now as self-standing men (such as the Great lakes Dir. K8JE), and which ones only respond (if at all) after Dave Sumner gets back from Switzerland - those are the toadies.  Then we vote out the toadies next time they come up for re-election.

In Dave Sumner's own words to Perry Ballinger W8AU “What the ARRL does in the future is decided by the 15 volunteer Directors...”.

[WD8BIL]

I guess the Ted Nugent topic was completely deleted from history.

Guess soo..... but it still lives in our memories 

I'll give Jim a ring and see what he says on the topic at hand. He's usually pretty responsive.

[Tom WA3KLR]

I received the November issue of my radio club's newsletter this afternoon.  I have been sending some of this IARU band plan stuff to our editor. 

My 2 page letter to the IARU and ARRL has been published along with Dave Sumner's response.  The newsletter is not in our website archives yet.

[k4kyv]

Notice that the bandplan now includes 40M from 7100 to 7300, and 20M from 14285 to 14300.
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

That is their latest revised edition.  Compare to the original
http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

The original bandplan as posted above had no 40m or 20m AM listed at all, except for the 7275 kHz "AM calling frequency" (@ 2700~ bandwidth?). Looks like correspondence with the IARU people did at least grab their attention and they have acknowledged by tossing us some crumbs, but the bandplan STILL HAS NO PROVISION FOR AM ON 160, which is where a large portion of the AM activity in N. America occurs. 

And not just in US and Canada. When condx are good, I hear pissweak warbly AM signals on 160M out of Cuba.  Evidently they throw together low power homebrew transmitters, probably built out of old broadcast receivers, maybe all they have to get on the air with.

The basic restrictive bandwidth limitations are still there, and there is still no AM listed for 17, 15, or 12m.

[K6JEK]

I'm a Diamond Club member.   I've given the ARRL good chunks of change the last few years for the BPL fight.   I'm going to get better answers than I have been to my various messages to ARRL officers about this band plan or this year there won't be any check in the mail. 

The Rinaldo email address in the NU9N editorial, prinaldo@arrl.net, bounces.   I presume .org is correct.

Jon, Diamond Club member maybe for the last time

[WA3VJB]

A partner of amfone.net, the Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio, has offered its registered members a letter from its board of directors that would place SPAR on record with the IARU as OPPOSED to the bandwidth plan, specifically because of its impact on AM.

Please register and vote in support of this letter.

Dear SPAR Forum Member:

You may have heard that the IARU Region 2 has proposed a bandplan that
 should go into effect in January. As part of the proposed plan, a
 bandwidth limit of 2.7 kHz has been included at the suggestion of the ARRL
 representative to the IARU. Many SPAR members are concerned that a
 bandwidth limit will hinder the use of AM on the HF bands and also set a bad
 precedent. Recall that the ARRL proposal to regulate by bandwidth was
 rejected by most commenting amateurs and subsequently withdrawn.

The SPAR Board of Directors has prepared a letter to the IARU
 expressing our concerns. The proposed letter can be viewed and voted on in the
 SPAR Forum at http://www.spar-hams.org/forum/phpbb2/index.php by
 selecting the first topic under Official SPAR Business. We encourage you to
 express your opinion, whether for or against the proposed letter.

Thanks for your participation and support!

73,
The SPAR BoD

[W2INR]

That is good news to hear Paul.

This thread has been viewed  over 4000 times. Now that we all have shown our concern it is time to do something about it.

I also think we need to make everyone know that the ARRL does NOT represent the majority of the amateur community. Paul could we do something with this?

I strongly recommend that we all support this effort.

http://www.spar-hams.org/index.php

G