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

[WA3VJB]

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

George,

It is regrettable that we have to communicate through open, unmoderated venues like this, but we would like to help you comply with your club's rule that you can exchange thoughts only with people in your region.

Had you been able to expand your ability to assess the concerns expressed here and elsewhere, you may have been precluded from making some mistakes and creating some misperceptions in your message of Nov. 7 to your constituents.

Let's start with the biggest concern, that of the IARU's representation of licensees. No mode or activity should be given unfounded short shrift in the manner documented to have taken place against AM in the Region 2 Plan taking effect in January.

Within that problem, you have a misunderstanding of how this voluntary band plan has been presented to the public.

For example, the pre-amble to the plan calls on member societies to actively lobby their respective government regulators to have this voluntary scheme given the force of law. There is no distinction made among countries that do not presently have a "band plan" on the regulatory books, and those such as the U.S. that do.

After the ARRL's stunning defeat in front of the FCC when it withdrew its Petition to use bandwidth as a way to segregate the various modes and activities on the ham bands, there was no acknowledgment by your club that the opposition expressed to the U.S. government had been well-founded and convincing.

The common theme among those opposed fell into two camps, one that believes in the longstanding, popular system of using mode to organize activities, and another whose Commenters clearly told you that your group misunderstood the will of both subscribers to the ARRL and that of other concerned licensees.

You, too, have failed to take this sentiment into account, and it is at your peril that you utter a belligerent, defensive message questioning those with better sense who have tried to explain to you and your comrades why a bandwidth-based scheme is unworkable.

Paul Courson
WA3VJB

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

I just read that too, Jay. Talk about a load of BS! I'm curious as to what 'unmoderated email reflectors' this nitwit is referring to? Anywhere I've seen it discussed has been moderated with occasional intervention by the moderators to keep things from getting ridiculous.

Also, the discussion of AM being eliminated hasn't been all that noticeable either, more an accurate discussion of how such changes would negatively impact the mode of AM and its attraction to many. But this is one of the most telling comments made:

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

Being suspicious based on previous ARRL activities, attitudes, and approaches to such matters is a WHOLE lot different than being ignorant. While the ITU does indeed have final say, unchallenged input presented as 'what's best' can and has been adopted in the past.

Seems as though the "mini-uproar" is a bit larger than ol' Georgie would have his members believe. This is exactly the attitude that has gotten the ARRL down to the level they are at today. Minimize the opposition, classify it as a few troublemakers/loons, point out that it's just not that way. Reminds me a lot of their response to their poorly-conceived bandwidth initiative.

[wd8das]

Mr Isely -

I was shocked by the tone and content of your message regarding the the IARU Region 2 bandplan changes.  Foremost among my concerns is the fact that you never responded to my questions regarding the limiting and restrictive nature of the the proposed bandplan.  As a member I expected that you would take my opinions into consideration.  But instead you issued a mass-email calling those who have expressed concerns about the bandplan to be "ignorant".

I *did* my research before contacting you, including learning about the IARU and corresponding with ARRL and IARU officials.  The ARRL officials brushed me off.  An IARU Region 2 official indicated that the "tightening" of the bandwidth specs was at the suggestion of the ARRL representatives to the IARU meeting.   Have you contacted IARU officials to get this perspective?

You are an elected Director of the ARRL. In addition to your governance role in the League you have a duty to listen to the concerns of the members in your division, and represent the interests of all the members in your division.  I think you should be listening to your constituents rather than lecturing and insulting them.  You have a duty to be respectful and considerate of those members who might choose to tell you their thoughts. 

I remain highly concerned about these bandplan changes.  And it is not just about "AM" mode as you indicate in your mass-email.  I feel that tight restrictions on bandwidth are not in the best interests of amateur radio - period.  We need maximum flexibility to allow all sorts of operations and modes, both old and new.

Steve WD8DAS
Fitchburg, Wisconsin

[Tom WA3KLR]

How many weeks has it been since we started sending emails to the IARU and the ARRL?  I predicted that not much would be heard back until Dave Sumner returned from Switzerland.  The responses you now get are from the toadie group. 

Division    Director Name & Call      Vote FOR  Vote AGAINST
Atlantic   Bill Edgar         N3LLR      
Central   George Isely  W9GIG   .                          x
Dakota   Jay Bellows    K0QB      
Delta   Henry Leggette WD4Q      
Great Lakes Jim Weaver  K8JE            X   
Hudson   Frank Fallon     N2FF      
Midwest   Bruce Frahm     K0BJ
New England  Tom Frenaye K1KI      
Northwestern Jim Fenstermaker K9JF      
Pacific   Bob Vallio        W6RGG      
Roanoke   Dennis Bodson  W4PWF      
Rocky Mountain "Rev" Morton WS7W      
Southeastern  Frank Butler   W4RH      
Southwestern  Richard Norton N6AA      
West Gulf  Coy Day       N5OK      

- - - - -
Ignorance (if that's what you call it) is voting for a band plan that is contradictory to your own sovereign country's regulations!

Ignorance is not knowing at this point that there is a new IARU band plan.  The lack of feedback from non-AM'ers is due to this.

Ignorance is not knowing at this point that your U.S. representatives (ARRL) voted for the plan!

Ignorance (if that's the word for it) is believing that remaining quiet is the "nice" thing to do!

The ULTIMATE IN IGNORANCE (if that's the word for it) is arguing for your own organization's obvious mis-representation!

[w3jn]

Well said, you guys.

It has never been explained to my satisfaction why a Region 2 band plan is needed in the first place - regardless of bandwidth/mode restrictions.  Each country is free to regulate its amateur activity as it sees fit.  An IARU "band plan" that is unenforceable in addition to being ill-considered is useless and will only create controversy between countries in the region because each country has its own specific frequency/mode restircitions that may not be the same as other country(s) in the region.  Yet it all seems to work OK FINE now.

This bandwidth proposal failed in front of the FCC for any number of good reasons.  It is incomprehensible why someone would now want to dredge it up as the policy document of an essentially useless organization.  And it is patently apparent that W9GIG fails to understand the most basic responsibilities he holds as a division director of the ARRL - which is to give the ARRL members in his division a voice in Newington.  Instead he feels compelled to give them a dressing-down. 

This episode is right up there with the Atlantic Division election of a few years ago, where a well-qualified candidate was disqualified by League HQ for "potential future confilict of interest".  How utterly pathetic 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

It has never been explained to my satisfaction why a Region 2 band plan is needed in the first place - regardless of bandwidth/mode restrictions.  Each country is free to regulate its amateur activity as it sees fit.  An IARU "band plan" that is unenforceable in addition to being ill-considered is useless and will only create controversy between countries in the region because each country has its own specific frequency/mode restircitions that may not be the same as other country(s) in the region.  Yet it all seems to work OK FINE now.

Remember, it's a voluntary band plan.

For a bit of history, IARU Region 2, go here:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/what-is-iaru-r2/history/

[w3jn]

That was interesting reading, Pete, thanks for the link.  Prominently mentioned toward the beginning of that document was the "SSB vs AM debate".  Further, they view their mission as some sort of advisory body to the ITU and OAS on communications issues.

However, my original question remains unanswered.  Each member country has more or less of a regulatory bandplan.  What is the point of a "voluntary" bandplan that is inconsistent with the current regulations in the Region 2 member countries - unless the goal is to pressure the ITU and/or OAS on institutionalizing such a plan?

Here's what the IARU supposedly does:

The Union’s objectives are those expressed in the Constitution of the International Amateur Radio Union and particularly:

1.  To protect and represent the interests of Amateur Radio in the Region in all matters related to the International Telecommunication Union “ITU” and with regional organizations such as the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (”CITEL”), sub-regional organizations such as the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (”CTU”) and others, and to coordinate such protection by IARU representation.
2.  To establish and maintain relations with Regions I and III of the IARU, coordinating and cooperating with them on all matters of mutual interest.
3.  To promote and coordinate radio communication amongst the amateurs of the various countries and territories in Region II.
4.  To promote mutual cooperative agreements amongst the radio amateur societies of the different countries and territories within Region II and amongst the various geographical areas within Region II.
5.  To promote the progress of the science of radio through experimentation.
6.  To promote international friendship and the growth of amateur radio in Region II.
7.  To promote the adoption of the principle of reciprocity for the issuance of Amateur Radio licenses amongst the countries of Region II as well as those of Regions I and III.
8.  To promote all additional activities related to Amateur Radio.

I would submit this "bandplan", on several levels, violates at least partially their mission statement - notably items 1,3,5,6, and 8.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

The problem I see with it Pete, is when it becomes a suggestion for rule/law changes, and assumed that it must be what we want since "our representative body" has suggested and/or supported it.

If it's voluntary/doesn't really apply, why bother? Why even suggest such foolishness, if we'll never be required to follow it?

The ARRL claims to support us as in amateur radio in America. The ARRL is the USA's representative in the IARU. Despite their choices increasingly going against what is best for amateur radio (according to responses, membership, etc) and only having something around 20-22% of the licensed amateurs in the country as members, they keep heading down the same road. All the while telling the FCC and anyone else who will listen that they represent us, they're doing what is in our best interest, and acting as if we want it when we clearly do not. Their lack of membership should be a very clear indication of that. Approximately 80% on this country's hams are not affiliated.

That's quite a message.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

However, my original question remains unanswered.  Each member country has more or less of a regulatory bandplan.  What is the point of a "voluntary" bandplan that is inconsistent with the current regulations in the Region 2 member countries - unless the goal is to pressure the ITU and/or OAS on institutionalizing such a plan?

Bermuda already has in their regulations a maximum of 2700 Hz bandwidth for all modes. Aruba has 3000 Hz maximum bandwidth for all modes and doesn't allow any AM operation unless there is written government approval. It is my understanding that they have yet to give anyone AM approval. It is also my understanding that some member countries have no equivalent FCC regulating government authority for amateur radio operations and so look to the IARU for guidance in their amateur radio regulations. Likewise, their are a number of countries in Region 1 and Region 3 that also fall into the same pot as not having a similar FCC type regulating government authority for their amateur radio operations.

[k4kyv]

If I were in the Central Division, having received a copy of that letter from Director Isely, I would have immediately responded, with cc's to League HQ officials, demanding that he follow up that correspondence with a letter of apology to all his constituents, particularly since he admits at the end of the letter that his "exasperation shows through" in this message.  My complaint would be that the condecending tone of Mr. Isely's public letter borders on conduct unbecoming to an elected League representative.

Mr. Isely has a right to freely express his opinion to constituents, but he could have done so in a more dignified manner to inform, without insulting.  Here is a suggested alternative, posted on another bulletin board by NE3R:

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.

There is no plan 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.

 

From personal experience, I can attest that the League is concerned about maintaining a positive image with the amateur community.  A few years ago I had a run-in with a SSB group Down South that had decided to claim "ownership" of 1888 kHz, even though 1885 had been widely used by AM groups throughout the country for many years, ever since LORAN was shut down and the band had been restored to full amateur use.  While I made it a point to never deliberately fire up on 1885 when 1888 was already in use by that group, I likewise refused to move off 1885 several times when I had already established a QSO, and the 1888 group expressed displeasure that I was occupying "their" frequency. (Those were the same geniuses who complained that I was "running AM and SSB at the same time" - they didn't know how I did it, but they were pretty sure that it was illegal.)  Shortly afterwards, I received a formal report from one of their buddies who happened to have an OO appointment with the League.  The card had several condescending remarks about my operation, including that I was "operating like a CB'er", while failing to include any alleged violations of specific Part 97 rules or of good amateur practice.  I wrote a letter of complaint to League HQ, along with a copy of the OO report.  I immediately received a very apologetic letter from several HQ officials, who also informed me that the OO had been directed to send me a personal letter of apology, which he did.  They then followed up inquiring if I was fully satisfied with the OO's response.  I replied that yes, I was satisfied, and considered the matter closed.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The problem I see with it Pete, is when it becomes a suggestion for rule/law changes, and assumed that it must be what we want since "our representative body" has suggested and/or supported it.

If it's voluntary/doesn't really apply, why bother? Why even suggest such foolishness, if we'll never be required to follow it?

The FCC has to agree that the IARU band plan is what is best for our amateur radio activity and then set the regulatory wheels in motion. Why do you believe the FCC would act on this voluntary band plan?

The ARRL claims to support us as in amateur radio in America. The ARRL is the USA's representative in the IARU. Despite their choices increasingly going against what is best for amateur radio (according to responses, membership, etc) and only having something around 20-22% of the licensed amateurs in the country as members, they keep heading down the same road. All the while telling the FCC and anyone else who will listen that they represent us, they're doing what is in our best interest, and acting as if we want it when we clearly don't. Their lack of membership should be a very clear indication of that. Approximately 80% on this country's hams are not affiliated.

That's quite a message.

People can have a variety of reasons for not joining a membership organization. Just like some men go to brothels and some go to bars.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

The FCC has to agree that the IARU band plan is what is best for our amateur radio activity and then set the regulatory wheels in motion. Why do you believe the FCC would act on this voluntary band plan?

The DC Input/P.E.P power ruling comes to mind. Seems to have been adopted based on presentation and bias vs. good logic, science, and so on. In my opinion.

People can have a variety of reasons for not joining a membership organization. Just like some men go to brothels and some go to bars.

I'd equate it more to a labor union. You join thinking they have the best interest of you and your industry's future at heart. You learn otherwise. They use your dues money to support candidates and causes you don't believe in or agree with, so you leave. Very few labor unions left as a result. ARRL appears headed in the same direction with its current old boy network. Thankfully the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The DC Input/P.E.P power ruling comes to mind. Seems to have been adopted based on presentation and bias vs. good logic, science, and so on. In my opinion.

One has to remember the AM'er who "helped" fight this with the FCC's J.J.

I'd equate it more to a labor union. You join thinking they have the best interest of you and your industry's future at heart. You learn otherwise. They use your dues money to support candidates and causes you don't believe in or agree with, so you leave. Very few labor unions left as a result. ARRL appears headed in the same direction with its current old boy network. Thankfully the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed.

Sorry, have to disagree. Even though I was in management the majority of my career, I still believe there are some great labor unions out there.

"the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed"
Why would they; other than the connection of "communications". FCC holds all the strings for amateur radio.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

One has to remember the AM'er who "helped" fight this with the FCC's J.J.

True, but that wasn't the point.

Sorry, have to disagree. Even though I was in management the majority of my career, I still believe there are some great labor unions out there.

The few that do or ever did exist were obscured by the many bad examples, unfortunately. Having a spokesman for a group is a good idea. Having an organization looking to maintain its existence based on creating more issues to address, nah.

"the FCC didn't make membership a mandatory prerequisite of becoming licensed"
Why would they; other than the connection of "communications". FCC holds all the strings for amateur radio.

Taken out of context, Pete. 'Thankfully' since more of the few unions remaining look for gov't intervention to maintain their presence. Happened here in VT under Sceamin' Dean, the Legislature had to pass a bill requiring all new state gov't hires pay partial dues to save the union, even if they didn't want representation. Same thing happened in Washington state after the employee's union paid for the last of three recounts that put a different governor in than the first three counts had shown. Both states that you'd think would embrace the worker's union concept, yet people chose not to.

Which gets back to the ARRL comparison, and being thankful that the FCC hasn't intervened on their behalf as some state gov'ts have for unions 'for the good of the organization'. It's not much of a stretch, really. Both claim to represent the best interest of their likely constituents.

It's not like the League has never suggested anything ridiculous before.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

It's not like the League has never suggested anything ridiculous before.

Of course, you don't have to look too far to see the same thing within the amateur ranks either.

[w3jn]

Bermuda already has in their regulations a maximum of 2700 Hz bandwidth for all modes. Aruba has 3000 Hz maximum bandwidth for all modes and doesn't allow any AM operation unless there is written government approval. It is my understanding that they have yet to give anyone AM approval. It is also my understanding that some member countries have no equivalent FCC regulating government authority for amateur radio operations and so look to the IARU for guidance in their amateur radio regulations. Likewise, their are a number of countries in Region 1 and Region 3 that also fall into the same pot as not having a similar FCC type regulating government authority for their amateur radio operations.

Thanks, Pete, you proved my point for me - that is, there are already many incompatible regulations amongst Region 2 countries but this incompatibility hasn't caused ANY problems I'm aware of.  I lived in Cuba for 2 years and did a lot of listening.  Even during hurricane emergencies when Cuban hams were very active passing traffic, I did not identify a single instance of stateside activity - AM or not - interfering with the emergency nets in Cuba, or any other activity for that matter.

The FCC has to agree that the IARU band plan is what is best for our amateur radio activity and then set the regulatory wheels in motion. Why do you believe the FCC would act on this voluntary band plan?

The FCC (until this most recent meeting) also attends ITU meetings dealing with spectrum issues.  It is true that the FCC has already spoken loudly and correctly on this issue; however, do we need yet another fight about this if the ITU decides to try and enforce this garbage?

[w3jn]

I just sent this off to W9GIG and the Atlantic Division director:

Mr. Edgar -

Although I am not currently a member of the ARRL (I declined to renew my membership a few years ago due to what I viewed as some unjustified unpleasantness in the Atlantic Division dealing with "potential conflicts of interest"), I understand that Division Directors are the amateur's conduit to ARRL management for question or comment on ARRL policies.  Thus my question to you.

I am sure you are aware of the controversy regarding the Region 2 IARU Band Plan, and the rather condescending letter send by the Central Division director.  If you are by chance not aware of this letter, I have taken the liberty of providing a copy (below) for your convenience and reference.

First, the missive below is unfortunate in that it is dismissive of many of us who are skeptical of the motives and the goals of the IARU-2 bandplan.  The assertion that we are gullible, do not understand the IARU, or the FCC, is patently incorrect and is unsubstantiated by any facts.  On the contrary, I would submit that we might perhaps understand this issue a bit more than W9GIG.  I will not devolve to W9GIG's strategy of ad hominem attacks against his critics - my "cherished mode" of operation is, after all, just as valid (if not more so) than any other amateur's.

The shortcomings of the IARU-2 bandplan are many.  First, it is based upon the faulty and unproven premise that there is interference due to differing bandwidth signals amongst the Region 2 countries.  I very possibly could be missing something, but I lived in Cuba for 2 years, did a lot of listening, and never once witnessed Cuban/US mode incompatibility problems (nor any real interference issues at all).  If there are such issues I would be interested in seeing the proof that they exist.

Second, one of the reasons the ARRL regulation-by-bandwidth proposal failed was that bandwidth was never strictly defined, nor was any method of measuring same defined.  Would bandwidth be measured at the -3dB points?  -6dB points?  -30 dB points?  How, and with what instrument that is readily available to most amateurs?  Although I have 22 years of experience as an RF engineer, I must tell you that measuring the bandwidth - even when that term is strictly defined - is no easy task on non-repetitive signals such as voice.  Because of my interest in AM (as well as my committment to having a clean signal) I have two professional-grade spectrum analyzers in my shack - a Tektronix 496 and a Hewlett-Packard 1751 - but how many other amateurs are as fortunate to have access to similar instruments (not to mention the expertise to effectively use them)?

And last (but certainly not least), the bandplan neglects several very popular niches of the hobby.  While W9GIG may assert that "it's only a bandplan and unenforceable" it has the potential to create controversy where none has previously existed.  Despite Mr. Isely's dissmissive attitude towards "cherished modes", AM, ESSB, and other wider-bandwidth modes are gaining in popularity.  To eliminate them from something that may be eventually considered as policy by the ITU (see below) is unacceptable to us.

The IARU Region 2 states that one of its goals is "To protect and represent the interests of Amateur Radio in the Region in all matters related to the International Telecommunication Union “ITU” and with regional organizations such as the Inter-American Telecommunication Commission (”CITEL”), sub-regional organizations such as the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (”CTU”) and others, and to coordinate such protection by IARU representation."  The IARU-2 bandplan, despite the fact that the FCC refused to adopt its essential goals (separation by bandwidth of operation), appears to me to be a back-door effort to revisit an issue many of us already considered as dead - this time, to the ITU.

It is true that the FCC makes, and enforces, the rules governing the Amateur Service in the US.  It is also true, however, that the US (being an ITU member), is obligated to consider international spectrum plans and develop strategies to ensure that US radio activity (amateur or other) does not interfere with other countries' radio services.    My question (I'm sure you've been wading thru all of this wondering when it would finally appear!) to the ARRL is,  WHY then, given all of the shortcomings of the IARU-2 plan, and given the opposition by many who have "cherished modes" of one sort or another, would the ARRL so staunchly defend this?  What is to be gained by it going forward if, as W9GIG asserts, the IARU-2 bandplan is essentially meaningless?  If it is meaningless, then why the impassioned defense of it?

Mr. Isley is right.  I do not "get it".  I therefore would greatly appreciate you explaining this to me.

Thank you very much for your time, and best of 73s!

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Thanks, Pete, you proved my point for me - that is, there are already many incompatible regulations amongst Region 2 countries but this incompatibility hasn't caused ANY problems I'm aware of.

Unless you've had dialog with all amateur radio representatives in the member countries of Region 2, you really don't know. And, yes, there are many incompatible regulations and/or voluntary band plans in existence today; hence the reason for a revised voluntary band plan that all member nations of Region 2 agreed upon.

The FCC (until this most recent meeting) also attends ITU meetings dealing with spectrum issues.  It is true that the FCC has already spoken loudly and correctly on this issue; however, do we need yet another fight about this if the ITU decides to try and enforce this garbage?

The ITU conference agenda was casted in concrete months before the IARU voted on a revised Region 2 voluntary band plan. There is nothing on the ITU agenda that is even remotely connected with any IARU voluntary band plans. Actually, most of the ITU business conference agenda, now in progress, will have little to do with amateur radio.

[w3jn]

Is this the last time the ITU is ever going to meet, Pete?

You are correct in your assertion that I do not know of any problems between countries.  One would think, however, if this were such an important issue, that such problems would be cited with examples given.  I see no evidence of them.  If they exist I would like to see them.

How would this bandplan resolve regulatory differences between member countries, when it discourages practices that are already legal?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Is this the last time the ITU is ever going to meet, Pete?

Next one, I believe, is 2011. You can confirm that on the ITU page.

You are correct in your assertion that I do not know of any problems between countries.  One would think, however, if this were such an important issue, that such problems would be cited with examples given.  I see no evidence of them.  If they exist I would like to see them.

I would suspect there was lots of dialog among member representatives and at past IARU meetings that helped formulate the data for the revised plan. I seem to recall that a revised Region 2 band plan had been in discussion for the last several years. If you were a member representative in the IARU, you probably would have seen some of the information, or heard some presentation, that lead up to the revised Region 2 band plan.

It's also been documented  on the IARU web site that member reps do meet on a regular basis on 20 meters. No frequency was posted.

How would this bandplan resolve regulatory differences between member countries, when it discourages practices that are already legal?

I think part of the issue is that some countries don't have real regulatory amateur radio control as we do here in the U.S. and so they look to the IARU for their amateur radio band plan guidance.
"when it discourages practices that are already legal"
Maybe that's why it's called a voluntary IARU Region 2 band plan.

I seem to recall words and phrases associated with our own "good operating practices" or  "considerate operator's guide" that would tend to discourage practices that some amateurs exhibit at times on the air that are still considered "legal". But again, "good operating practices" and "considerate operator's guide" are also voluntary activities.

[WA3VJB]

Actually, Pete, yes, I have had conversations with nearly all the Region 2 reps that took part in the development of the revised band plan, and this came about without any documentation nor substantiation of any problems.

It was prompted by two things, and I suggest that you can make the calls yourself to confirm:

1. Paul Rinaldo expressing vague concerns about people running wider than 2.7Kc

2. Using the Region 1 IARU band plan as a basis for Region 2.
John,
When I paid $39 to take part in the recent ARRL survey, it made me a subscriber for some reason. I have associated myself with your remarks to Bill Edgar, and have asked him in an email to copy me in his reply to you.  This will cancel any inclination to ignore a non-subscriber like yourself.

[WA3VJB]

Charlie posted this over on QRZ.com in response to the Isley letter.

My reply:

George,

RE: Bandwidth limitation letter

I know you are upset, but I'd suggest if you want to be mad, direct it at Paul Renaldo for proposing the bandwidth limitation without explaining it fully.    Some ARRL guy works something into the plan without explaining what the implications are and the whole world is wrong for misunderstanding?  The same guy who was pushing the bandwidth petition and we're supposed to just "understand"? It would be nice to see all that hostility directed at the right person. Thanks for what you do for all ARRL members.

Charlie
AG4YO

Edited by AG4YO on Nov. 08 2007,11:39

--------------
Charlie, AG4YO

[w3jn]

John,
When I paid $39 to take part in the recent ARRL survey, it made me a subscriber for some reason. I have associated myself with your remarks to Bill Edgar, and have asked him in an email to copy me in his reply to you.  This will cancel any inclination to ignore a non-subscriber like yourself.

TNX, Paul, much appreciated.  I have not had much success in the past in obtaining responses to emails I sent to my Director nor Headquarters, even when I was a member.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

And then they wonder why most amateurs aren't members.

John,
When I paid $39 to take part in the recent ARRL survey, it made me a subscriber for some reason. I have associated myself with your remarks to Bill Edgar, and have asked him in an email to copy me in his reply to you.  This will cancel any inclination to ignore a non-subscriber like yourself.

TNX, Paul, much appreciated.  I have not had much success in the past in obtaining responses to emails I sent to my Director nor Headquarters, even when I was a member.

[wd8das]

>The card had several condescending remarks about my operation,
>including that I was "operating like a CB'er",

You know, I've heard that complaint made about others... and when I pushed for an explanation of what they meant, it was explained that the guys in question were having a lot of laughs and fun in a fast-paced multi-station conversation.

In addition to tolerance regarding bandwidth I think we also need some tolerance about what constitutes "correct" amateur operation.

Steve WD8DAS