The AM Forum
July 24, 2024, 05:49:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 7 [8] 9 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.  (Read 440583 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #175 on: November 01, 2007, 09:45:30 AM »

Thanks, Gary for weighing in.

Tom, KLR was getting queries from people about an email or letter campaign to let the key players know of the concerns.

Responding to that, I proposed sending out to selected groups an overture with contact information. 

That's still coming together, but this is the one I floated to Brian's AM Reflector, and Andy Howard's Southeastern Amateur Radio Club reflector.  I am getting some interesting and helpful answers.

~~~~~~~~
Quote
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 07:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: VJB <wa3vjb@yahoo.com>
Subject: [AMRadio] IARU counter-campaign?
To: amradio@mailman.qth.net
Message-ID: <166921.80522.qm@web52807.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Several of us are working up a possible shotgun
approach to contact key players and ask for further
revisions in the IARU Region 2 Band Plan.

An outgoing email or posting would present the problem
to AMers and our supporters.  The same email would
advocate taking action along certain key points to be
expressed.

Please post or send directly to me your suggestions
for this upcoming effort. Details are still coming
together.
 
This will require a rapid turn-around because the
Region 2 committee is already making revisions ahead
of the January start date for this voluntary plan.

Thanks for investing some of your time.

Paul/VJB



Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #176 on: November 01, 2007, 10:16:25 AM »

Support for AM  on every band is not the only issue of concern.  The entire concept of specific bandwidth limitations is unacceptable.  The purpose of a bandplan is voluntary segmentation according to emission type, particularly in countries (i.e. nearly everywhere in the world except for USA) that don't have government-mandated subbands in their regulations.  The purpose of a band plan NOT to set technical standards.

If there were to be specific segments set aside for AM, then they should be designated as exclusive for AM, and not merely restrict AM to sharing with other modes inside those limited segments.  However, I would much prefer a designation of "phone" as it now exists in Part 97, to include any form of phone on any frequency within the segment.  Let each country declare its own "AM calling frequencies".

If allocation by bandwidth is to be made an issue for "other" modes that may fall outside the usual categories such as phone, cw, data, etc, the language should be made clear that this refers to "necessary bandwidth" and not "occupied bandwidth".
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #177 on: November 02, 2007, 05:11:41 AM »

A onetime ARRL president, Larry Price, has been the head of the IARU for a while now. He wrote a vague rationale for the Region 2 plan that seemed to suggest he wants all three Regions to be "harmonized" without footnotes.

AM, under their scheme, would be a footnote.

You can take it the next step.
Logged
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #178 on: November 02, 2007, 08:51:48 AM »

"Harmonized" - makes me think of singing.

Then the phase from a Janis Joplin song pops into my mind - "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose...".

Harmonize = New World Odor.

Larry Price W4RA, "Wishing-For-Removed-AM".
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
WD8BIL
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4406


« Reply #179 on: November 02, 2007, 09:17:14 AM »

I think the term nowadayz Tom is GLOBALIZE !

glob•al•ize

Pronunciation: (glô'bu-lîz"), [key]
—v.t., -ized, -iz•ing.
to extend to other or all parts of the globe; make worldwide: efforts to globalize amateur radio. Also, esp. Brit.,glob'al•ise".
Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #180 on: November 03, 2007, 10:32:20 AM »



I've had quite a few inquiries asking for a "form letter" to use to complain about the restrictive IARU Region 2 bandplan that will be going into effect in the new year.

I've posted an example text on my website, with likely email addresses to send complaints to.  If you choose to use this text please do not just copy the whole letter.  It would be much better if you edit it to suit your own particular views.  Perhaps you want to emphasize the damage to AM operations, or perhaps you are worried about vintage SSB, or maybe you don't like the whole idea.  But in any case make it your own.

http://www.wd8das.net/bandplan.htm


Steve WD8DAS

sbjohnston@aol.com
http://www.wd8das.net/
------------------------------------------------
Radio is your best entertainment value.
------------------------------------------------
Logged
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #181 on: November 03, 2007, 01:53:54 PM »

OK,  rather than being a stick in the mud, I sent out an e-mail too.  Many thanks to Don, Steve, and Tom for their thoughts (which I incorporated into my e-mail.  Here it is:

----- Original Message -----
From: Ellen Rugowski
To: iaru@iaru.org ; leandror@bellsouth.net ; w6rod@iaru.org ; hp1dj@sinfo.net ; 9y4ned@tstt.net.tt ; ve2ka@iaru.org ; co2rp@jovenclub.cu ; gudiel@comtelsa.com ; pt2adm@pobox.com ; lu2ah@szama.com ; LPrice@iaru.org ; tellam@iaru.org ; dsumner@arrl.org ; relandro@cantv.net
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2007 12:51 PM
Subject: New IARU Region 2 Band Plan - Effective 1 January, 2008


Dear Sirs;

Recently, I learned that the IARU has adopted, effective Jan 1 2008, a new "voluntary band plan" for Region 2.  Unfortunately, it is my belief, that this band plan (even in its recently revised form) places restrictive limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths, overlooks commonly used modes and practices on the bands 160 - 10m, and is in some ways, unrealistic in it's requirements.   Here is why:

1.  The tight bandwidth restrictions go against the spirit of experimentation and innovation that are important aspects of Amateur Radio.  New and innovative modes of transmission, would not be allowed if their bandwidths that are greater than what the band plan calls for.
 
2.  Some modes that are used by Radio Amateurs (such as AM and ESSB), would be severely restricted frequency-wise.   DSB AM would only be allowed on small, 15 and 25 kHz segments of 80, 40, and 20 meters.  In the case of 80m, the allowed AM band segment of 3600-3625 kHz is completely at odds with the frequencies where the vast majority of regular US and Canadian AM operating activities take place: 3700-3730 kHz; and 3870-3890 kHz.  No provision is made in the band plan for 160 meter band AM operating, which is significant in the US and Canada, or AM operation on the 15 meter band (which sees AM activity above 21,400 kHz, during active periods in the sunspot cycle).  ESSB would be completely disallowed by the new IARU band plan, since by its nature, it's bandwidth is greater than the 2.7 kHz allowed for SSB.
 
3.  The bandwidth restrictions set forth for AM and SSB would curtail the use of some transmitters and transceivers that are still legal under present regulations in the US and Canada.  For instance, the maximum allowable bandwidth for DSB AM would be 6 kHz.  Many older AM transmitters have a wider transmitting bandwidth than this. They would need to modified or in some cases permanently shut down to meet the 6 kHz bandwidth requirement.  This is also the case for many older SSB transceivers and transmitters.  The new IARU band plan specifies that the maximum allowable SSB bandwidth will be 2.7 kHz.  Many older SSB transmitters that use the phasing generation method will not meet this requirement, nor would some of the older SSB transceivers that even use filters to generate SSB.  As for ESSB - it wouldn't even be allowed under the new Band Plan.
 
4.  The bandwidth requirements are not clearly defined -  with regards to bandwidth, what does this mean?  Occupied bandwidth?  Signal bandwidth at 6 dB points (as viewed on an oscilloscope)?  How would most Radio Amateurs determine if their bandwidth meets the band plan?  I have an oscilloscope, and know how to use it , but most Radio Amateurs do not have one.   As it is, an overmodulated signal will exceed the 6 kHz AM, and 2.7 kHz SSB, even if the transmitter meets the bandwidth requirements under normal usage. 
 
I know that the IARU, band plan proposal is purely voluntary, and has no legal authority in each of the member countries.  But, I urge you to reconsider, and at the very least, make revisions to this band plan.  In the past, band plans like this have caused conflict between Radio Amateurs who have ignored them and Radio Amateurs who have erroneously insisted that these band plans should be treated as law.   This is detrimental to the vitality of Amateur Radio. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Sincerely,
Ellen Rugowski - AF9J
Logged
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #182 on: November 03, 2007, 02:00:52 PM »

Well, I already got one bounceback from HP1DJ.  Maybe he's feeling deluged with e-mails Wink.  Word is getting out. I heard Rob, WA9ZTY (net control for the Midwest Classic Net), discussing it on the air with a couple of people.

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #183 on: November 03, 2007, 11:19:36 PM »

A really excellent letter, Ellen.  Nice job...  Steve

Logged
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #184 on: November 04, 2007, 11:07:16 AM »

Thanks Steve, Smiley

If anybody wants to steal from it for their own letter (so they don't have to reinvent the wheel), be my guest.  Just make some wording changes, organization rearragements, etc., so that it doesn't look like a form letter.

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Logged
Vortex Joe - N3IBX
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1639


WWW
« Reply #185 on: November 04, 2007, 02:42:50 PM »

Well, I already got one bounceback from HP1DJ.  Maybe he's feeling deluged with e-mails Wink.  Word is getting out. I heard Rob, WA9ZTY (net control for the Midwest Classic Net), discussing it on the air with a couple of people.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

Good Going! Did someone say "safety in numbers"? Let's keep the pressure on!
Logged

Joe Cro N3IBX

Anything that is Breadboarded,Black Crackle, or that squeals when you tune it gives me MAJOR WOOD!
K9ACT
Guest
« Reply #186 on: November 05, 2007, 08:45:37 AM »

I stopped reading this thread and now find it impossible to catch up but I did read the band plan in the meantime and think much of the discussion about it here and on the air is shadow boxing.

First of all, this does not include the bandwidth issue which is poison and must be fought tooth and nail.

I have seen refs to AM being limited to a tiny portion of the 80 meter band and not all on 160 and do not know where this comes from.


After reading it several times it seems that, other than QRP and DX windows, the Slop Bucketeers should be as unhappy as the AM'ers.

Every place we are,  want to be or have been is covered by the "All Modes" umbrella.  Unless AM is not a "mode", I fail to see the problem.

Our "window" was not spelled out but that seems more like an oversight than an attempt to wipe out AM.

The term AM may not appear anywhere but this is not the same as suggesting it is banned anywhere new.

I suggest that in letters and complaints we confine our comments to the real issue of bandwidth so as not to offer the recipients the opportunity to suggest we are misguided.

js
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #187 on: November 05, 2007, 08:37:56 PM »

It's not clear to me how defending AM operation would be misguided.
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #188 on: November 05, 2007, 11:22:16 PM »

First of all, this does not include the bandwidth issue which is poison and must be fought tooth and nail.

I have seen refs to AM being limited to a tiny portion of the 80 meter band and not all on 160 and do not know where this comes from...

Every place we are,  want to be or have been is covered by the "All Modes" umbrella.  Unless AM is not a "mode", I fail to see the problem.

The term AM may not appear anywhere but this is not the same as suggesting it is banned anywhere new...

I suggest that in letters and complaints we confine our comments to the real issue of bandwidth so as not to offer the recipients the opportunity to suggest we are misguided.

AM would be allowed outside the asterisked segments if the bandwidth were limited to 2700~.  The only way to do that would be to roll off all the highs above 1350~ (making the audio totally unintelligible) or by transmitting one sideband plus carrier, which is not the same thing as what we call AM, but SSB with poor carrier suppression.  In this proposed bandplan, the AM and bandwidth issues are one and the same.

The purpose of a bandplan is to agree on how the users of the various modes of emission will share the bands.  The purpose is not to set emission standards.  Transmitting bandwidth falls under the category of emission standards.

The bandplan could be made salvageable by trashing the "maximum bandwidth" column altogether, and eliminating the asterisked AM segments, letting "all modes" mean just that.  Suggested "AM calling frequencies" could still be retained.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
WQ9E
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3287



« Reply #189 on: November 07, 2007, 10:34:07 PM »

Well, anyone else in the central division probably also got this but an email from the director states that there is no reason for concern by AMers with the region 2 bandplan and states (his words, not mine) that the current uproar is due to a few ignorant people with issues making postings to unmoderated websites... 

I am feeling so good about sending in an official request to become an ex-member of condescending alliance of jackasses.

Rodger WQ9E (an ignorant ham with a Ph.D. among my other issues..)
Logged

Rodger WQ9E
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #190 on: November 08, 2007, 02:26:08 AM »

Well, anyone else in the central division probably also got this but an email from the director states that there is no reason for concern by AMers with the region 2 bandplan and states (his words, not mine) that the current uproar is due to a few ignorant people with issues making postings to unmoderated websites... 

Interesting.  Why don't you post a copy here so others outside the central division  could see it?
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
John Holotko
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2132



« Reply #191 on: November 08, 2007, 03:34:55 AM »

Guys, you're getting all worked up over NOTHING.

Remember the ARRL's "mandatory voluntary bandplans" petition? How about the bandwidth petition? What do they have in common?

THEY ALL WENT DOWN IN FLAMES.

The FCC has absolutely no interest in adding further regulations to ham radio. They've said this over and over again, but something as stupid as an IARU bandplan comes along and everyone forgets that and goes all Chicken Little about it.

Put away your guns, guys (and put away your white flag, Mack). There's no fight here, and nothing for us to be upset about. It's just a bunch of tired old men trying to pretend they were ever relevant.

--Thom
Killer Agony One Zipper Got Caught

Still, better to get a little worked up and do something than do nothing. Sometimes it's good to let em know you're out there.
Logged

N2IZE<br /><br />Because infinity comes in different sizes.
W9GT
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1240


Nipper - Manager of K9 Affairs


WWW
« Reply #192 on: November 08, 2007, 07:28:33 AM »

This pretty much speaks for itself!  The condescending tone is incredulous and insulting.  I would venture to say that the ignorance is with the writer, not the audience.

7 NOV 2007 - 2050 CST



Fellow Central Division ARRL Members:



For those who follow FCC proceedings and already understand what the
IARU is and how it operates, a lot of what I'm about to say may be old
news to you.  However, we still appear to have individuals, who do not
understand the IARU (and sometimes even the FCC), get very excited when
somebody tells them their cherished mode of amateur radio operation is
in danger of being eliminated.  What follows is for the benefit of
these people.



The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.



The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.



The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.



There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".



I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.



I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org
Logged

Tubes and Black Wrinkle Rule!!
73, Jack, W9GT
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #193 on: November 08, 2007, 08:13:59 AM »

Thanks Jack for posting, I will use a few nuggets in there for some imminent mailouts.

Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #194 on: November 08, 2007, 08:22:58 AM »

If the IARU is really so unimportant and powerless, why does it even bother to create band plans?

They can't have it both ways.
Logged
K9ACT
Guest
« Reply #195 on: November 08, 2007, 09:15:22 AM »

If the IARU is really so unimportant and powerless, why does it even bother to create band plans?

They can't have it both ways.

More to the point is, why did the ARRL endorse it and then send letters denouncing the stupity of the people who are concerned about it.

js
Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #196 on: November 08, 2007, 09:33:36 AM »


My ARRL Director never had the courtesy to respond to my questions regarding the IARU bandplan and bandwidths (never mentioned AM initially), but now he has issued this broadside to all his division members explaining it all.  And calling us names.  Nice.  I'm so glad I'm a member of this fine organization.

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - - -

UNFOUNDED RUMORS: Region 2 IARU Band Plan & AM Operation

7 NOV 2007 - 2050 CST

Fellow Central Division ARRL Members:

For those who follow FCC proceedings and already understand what the
IARU is and how it operates, a lot of what I'm about to say may be old
news to you.  However, we still appear to have individuals, who do not
understand the IARU (and sometimes even the FCC), get very excited when
somebody tells them their cherished mode of amateur radio operation is
in danger of being eliminated.  What follows is for the benefit of
these people.

The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.

The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.

The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.

There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".

I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.

I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------

- - - - - - - - - -


Logged
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #197 on: November 08, 2007, 09:46:08 AM »

Jack & Rodger,

You weren't kidding.  What a rude and condescending e-mail!  We're depicted as being like a bunch of misguided children.   Having my intelligence insulted always gets my dander up.  None of the e-mails to the ARRL or IARU (including my own) even mention that this band plan would have the same legal weight as the Part 97 regulations.  Some, if not all of the e-mails clearly state this.  What was mentioned, would be the friction this band plan would cause between Radio Amateurs.  I even resisted the temptation to overtly state that this band plan might be a back door route for instituting regs, that would hamper and/or possibly eliminate AM & ESSB from HF, so it wouldn't sound like I was crying wolf.

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Dealing with nonsense at work  
Logged
W5AMI
Founder of amfone.net
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 233


Poke Greens


WWW
« Reply #198 on: November 08, 2007, 10:04:20 AM »

For those are not on the AMRadio Reflector, here is my comment back to Mr. Isley, and the entire AM list:

> The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
> with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
> reflectors.
>

Dear Mr. Isely,

I find these sort of comments very insulting to those who have a right
to discuss and seek information freely about an issue that is of great
concern to them.  If you feel there are those of us who are "ignorant
people", maybe the ARRL should have posted an easy to understand
explanation to the public on their website.  Maybe even quote your
email publicly?

I own and manage the only AM email list that I'm aware of, and have
since 1997.  It has never been moderated because I believe in allowing
free speech when it pertains to any issue with the operation of AM on
the amateur bands, so long as those discussions remain civil, and on
topic.  I assure you that my policy on that will NOT change.

Sure, there may be certain comments made that are from those who do
not fully understand all the legalese and "loopholes" in these
documents, but perhaps not all of us understand the higher meaning of
things that you can.

Thanks for your terse explanation.

Brian Sherrod / wa5am

Logged

73 de W5AMI - Brian
Gates BC-1T from KVOC the "Voice of Casper" in WY
W1VD
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 401



« Reply #199 on: November 08, 2007, 10:22:17 AM »

The following just crossed the AM e mail list wires...thought it might be of interest here...


Just received this mass-mailing from my ARRL Director.  He never responded to
my questions regarding the IARU bandplan, but now he has issued this
broadside to all his division members explaining it all.  And calling us names.  Nice.
 I'm so glad I'm a member of this fine organization.

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - - -

UNFOUNDED RUMORS: Region 2 IARU Band Plan & AM Operation   
   
7 NOV 2007 - 2050 CST

Fellow Central Division ARRL Members:

For those who follow FCC proceedings and already understand what the
IARU is and how it operates, a lot of what I'm about to say may be old
news to you.  However, we still appear to have individuals, who do not
understand the IARU (and sometimes even the FCC), get very excited when
somebody tells them their cherished mode of amateur radio operation is
in danger of being eliminated.  What follows is for the benefit of
these people.

The recently approved IARU Region 2 Band Plan is only an advisory band
plan for use, as desired, primarily by those amateur radio societies in
Region 2 that have little in the way of a band plan.  This is the
second IARU Region to adopt a new or revised band plan.  Region 3 still
has yet to act on this item.

The International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) is only an advisory
organization made up of the amateur radio societies in each respective
region.  Region 2 is North and South America.  The geographic regions
mirror the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Regions.  The
ITU is the body that develops the rules at World Radio Conferences that
then have to be adopted by each country.  The IARU has no such power.

The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people
with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email
reflectors.

There is no plot to shut down amateur radio AM operation in the U.S. or
it's territories.  The existing AM footnotes to our current band plan
still apply and will continue to do so until the FCC changes or erases
them from its Part 97 Regulations.  I repeat, there is no ARRL plan to
get rid of HF amateur radio AM operation in the U.S.  I also point out
that the AM footnotes (that enable AM operation) in the current FCC
Amateur Radio Service band plan would have still applied to our
regulation by bandwidth proposal, if it had become an FCC Regulation.
Only the portions of the HF band plan that would have been changed were
listed in the ARRL petition to the FCC.  This is standard procedure in
an FCC filing.  Many people still do not "get it".

I find it absolutely amazing that many people jump to conclusions
before they do their own homework.  This is true in many activities,
including amateur radio.  There have been, and apparently always will
be, individuals who are gullible, biased, have an axe to grind, or are
some combination of the three when it comes to discussing and
considering amateur radio regulations.  They are few in number, but
there are a lot of others who are taken in by these people simply
because they don't understand the situation and don't want to spend the
effort to get the facts directly from the source.

I don't have a good answer to this situation other than to keep working
to spread the truth.  I apologize for my exasperation that shows
through in this message.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
ARRL Central Division
Director: George Isely, W9GIG
w9gig@arrl.org
Logged

'Tnx Fer the Dope OM'.
Pages: 1 ... 7 [8] 9 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.082 seconds with 19 queries.