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

[WA3VJB]

Norm, do you interpret Harrison's remarks as including a presumption U.S. ham will not want to comply with the IARU Plan? How counterproductive that seems to be, and disrespectful of the IARU's work.

[K4QE]

Mr. Harrison,

The ARRL, by virtue of being the IARU's representative member society for the United States in ITU Region 2, is OBLIGATED to consider comments (regarding issues that will be discussed at IARU conferences) from ALL radio amateurs in the US without discrimination against non-ARRL members.

If the ARRL does not fulfill that obligation, then it cannot claim to represent the US ham population.

It's that simple.

[Ed - N3LHB]

Here's the reply to my first objection email... not very reassuring... seems like a form mail response...

Ed,

Thank you for letting me know of your concerns with regard to the band plan adopted recently by the member-societies of IARU Region 2. You sent your message to a number of individuals; because the ARRL is the representative organization in the IARU for radio amateurs of the United States, I am replying on their behalf.

IARU regional band plans have been in existence for many years. They are developed, reviewed and approved at regional conferences of the IARU member-societies. The band plans provide voluntary guidelines that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations. They are not restrictions and carry no regulatory authority. On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

The new IARU Region 2 band plan was developed by delegates to the Region 2 Conference from a number of countries. It does not align in every respect either with the FCC rules or with operating patterns followed by US amateurs. Unlike the United States, most countries do not have regulations setting out subbands for different types of emission. Even in the US the FCC rules do not provide much detail with regard to frequency use. As FCC amateur licensees we are obliged to cooperate with one another in selecting transmitting channels and making the most effective use of amateur service frequencies, and to follow good engineering and good amateur practice.

Your message objects to the Region 2 band plan for “suggesting limits that are more severe than regulations from the governments in the region.” However, the band plan does not contain “limits.” As voluntary guidelines the band plan cannot by definition be “more severe” than regulations. And finally, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.

Your message refers to IARU President Larry Price as wishing “to discourage footnotes among the various regional plans he oversees.” First, the IARU President does not “oversee” regional band plans. Each regional plan is developed by the member-societies of that region, in accordance with the constitution, bylaws and rules of the regional organization. The regional organizations are autonomous entities and do not answer to the IARU President. Second, Mr. Price’s observation with regard to footnotes had nothing whatsoever to do with IARU band plans. Footnotes are not by their nature either good or bad; it depends on what they say. Mr. Price’s observation had to do specifically with footnotes in the ITU Table of Frequency Allocations that prohibit amateur operation, or authorize sharing by additional services, in certain countries in certain parts of the bands that are allocated in the ITU Table to the amateur service. One of the goals of the IARU is to minimize such footnotes. On the other hand, there are other footnotes to the ITU Table that are extremely beneficial to Amateur Radio, such as the ones permitting amateur-satellite operation. In any case this is totally unrelated to IARU band planning activities, which are internal to the amateur service and to each regional IARU organization and have nothing whatever to do with the ITU.

I hope this has reassured you that nothing will happen on January 1 that will in any way affect your use of AM. We are always seeking ways to improve the process of revision of the IARU Region 2 band plan and the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2, are always open to member input on future revisions that ARRL delegates may take to future Region 2 Conferences. I encourage you to communicate with the Division Director in your ARRL Division.

Sincere 73,

Joel Harrison, W5ZN

ARRL President

[wd8das]

The ARRL President wrote:

>I hope this has reassured you that nothing will
>happen on January 1 that will in any way affect your use of AM.

There, there, little ones, no need to worry your little heads over the scary old bandplan.  It won't get you...

How disrespectful.  We offer reasoned arguments and they respond like we are frightened children.  I'm going to have to start wearing a neck-brace from shaking my head -sadly, resignedly- each time I read the ARRL responses.  Sigh.

Steve WD8DAS

[WA3VJB]

Actually, in this response form letter, it looks like Old Joel has admitted defeat, since the IARU plan does not support U.S. regulations regarding AM, nor does it acknowledge established operating patterns and coordination.

if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations it would serve no purpose.

[AB5S]

Re: The ARRL Prez's letter.

On behalf of the ARRL, I can assure you that there are no plans to propose incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules. One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive.

What a load...
The "voluntary band plans" are likely to be adopted by
multiple governments as law, and he knows that.
I guess he thinks we're stupid...

[Pete, WA2CWA]

OH yes, I hope folks will just take those as talking points, but hey, if they get multiple sendouts that's okay too, since it shows the level of concern. I agree that some spam filters will scrape off an email with too many cc's, but from the traffic I've been seeing in response, the cc list among IARU players is long and varied.
I since have gotten emails from Dave Sumner and Larry Price, functionaries at the IARU who are either present or former ARRL administrators.  Price wrote a somewhat rambling article for the International Telecommunications Union, in which he expressed his opposition to "footnotes."

A footnote is how the ARRL's representatives tried to treat AM in their failed bandwidth petition to the FCC, later withdrawn, and it is the same tactic used in early versions of the IARU's voluntary band plan taking effect in January.

Onetime ARRL president Larry Price, W4RA, now president of the IARU

In his ITU article, Price wrote, in part:

The amateur radio community seeks increased harmonization of frequency allocations, through the reduction and avoidance of country footnotes that reduce the availability of bands that are allocated internationally to radio amateurs.

In effect, Price equates the concept of footnotes with reduced availability of bands to licensees.  This is what would happen if AM were relegated to the status of a footnote in the voluntary IARU Region 2 Band Plan, which is why it is a suitable reference in expressions of concern to these groups.

So, are going to share with us Sumner's and Price's response to "your multiple sendouts". I would think that all some members here would be interested in what they said and how they responded to your statements.

[WA3VJB]

So, are going to share with us Sumner's and Price's response to "your multiple sendouts". I would think that all some members here would be interested in what they said and how they responded to your statements.

Pete,
You're pretty tight with these guys, why don't you just ask them to copy you in on my correspondence, and you can say that's fine with me.

I am sure they will instantly comply with your request.

I would rather spend the time cleaning up the mess the ARRL reps made in Brazil.

If you're in touch, be a dear and ask them if they plan to endorse the suggested revisions underway by the non-U.S. representatives from Region 2.  They won't answer me on that point.

Then again, Price told me he was busy at the ITU and that it's not his department, and Sumner said he wasn't involved either.  I don't see any fingerprints from Harrison, so that leaves Paul Rinaldo and Rod Stafford. But wait Rod already told me he wasn't involved either.

Sic um !

OH, and while you're at it, can you please learn the decision-making process and list of talking points Rinaldo was commissioned to utter at Brazil ?  I'd hate to think he did something on his own, violating Harrison's dictum.

the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2,

Paul

[Pete, WA2CWA]

So, are going to share with us Sumner's and Price's response to "your multiple sendouts". I would think that all some members here would be interested in what they said and how they responded to your statements.

Pete,
You're pretty tight with these guys, why don't you just ask them to copy you in on my correspondence, and you can say that's fine with me.

I am sure they will instantly comply with your request.

I would rather spend the time cleaning up the mess the ARRL reps made in Brazil.

If you're in touch, be a dear and ask them if they plan to endorse the suggested revisions underway by the non-U.S. representatives from Region 2.  They won't answer me on that point.

Then again, Price told me he was busy at the ITU and that it's not his department, and Sumner said he wasn't involved either.  I don't see any fingerprints from Harrison, so that leaves Paul Rinaldo and Rod Stafford. But wait Rod already told me he wasn't involved either.

Sic um !

OH, and while you're at it, can you please learn the decision-making process and list of talking points Rinaldo was commissioned to utter at Brazil ?  I'd hate to think he did something on his own, violating Harrison's dictum.

the ARRL Board of Directors, who determine the policy for ARRL’s input to IARU Region 2,

Paul

Nah! I generally talk to Dave on matters of amateur radio that affect my specific operating modes and frequencies. Regional voluntary band plans don't fall into that category.
I'll let you savor those "intimate responses" by yourself. Have fun.

[WA3VJB]

You're right Pete, it's probably best that you stay out of it.

[WA3VJB]

SPAR's Board of Directors has voted to approve this letter and was to send it out today.

Thanks guys

The Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio (SPAR) is a group of
over 900 Amateurs who have banded together to ensure that both the
technical flavor and "look and feel" of Amateur Radio remains
available for future generations. Recently we discovered that Paul
Rinaldo, who pushed the ARRL's failed bandwidth petition, suggested a
2.7Kc bandwidth for the IARU Region 2 band plan during committee-level
deliberations that took place in Brazil. There was no known input,
justification, nor documented basis for this suggestion beyond
Mr. Rinaldo's expressed concern that "some people are running wider than
that," according to our source who attended the meeting.

Most licensees, including those who favor AM, wish to support and
comply with a voluntary band plan as a way of coordinating modes and
activities. Mr. Rinaldo, as a representative of the ARRL, (the club
that sits at the IARU table for U.S. licensees) has made it impossible for
many of us to support the IARU plan due to the proposed bandwidth
limitation. We feel any plan MUST include AM either by exception or
by avoiding a limit such as suggested by Paul Rinaldo.

In the United States, there is a fairly large number of AM enthusiasts
who buy and rebuild old equipment for use on the air. This AM
community solidly opposed the ARRL's failed bandwidth regulation plan,
and the bandwidth limit as proposed by Mr. Rinaldo could be viewed as
"pay back" for that opposition. We hope this is not the case and that
the IARU will simply exempt AM use, or remove the bandwidth limitation.

Finally, SPAR is concerned that the inclusion of an explicit bandwidth
limit in a voluntary bandplan is counter to the wishes of most amateurs,
as evidenced by the recent outcry against the ARRL's proposal to the
FCC. It should be noted that bandwidth limits were soundly rejected
by an overwhelming majority of the commenters and the ARRL petition was
subsequently withdrawn. Without the means to make bandwidth measurements,
the mention of a specific bandwidth limit adds nothing to the bandplan.
SPAR is concerned that the inclusion of a bandwidth limit is an attempt by the
ARRL to circumvent the expressed desires of the majority of amateurs.

[W1QWT]

Hi,
I had sent an email about the IARU fiasco to my EMA Section guy. He called me on the phone and pretty much seemed
to agree with me. He did forward my email to one of the assistant section guys who sent me a reasonable email
that was respectful. I don't agree with all of his comments but before I reply I wanted to run a section of it by you.
I have been  a design engineer and a member of the IEEE for almost 35 years. I have never heard anyone denounce the AM method of modulating a signal nor the analog domain. I am assuming that this gentleman is talking about amplitude modulation of RF carriers only. After all QAM is very popular these days in data transmissions both digitally and in the analog domain.
I am not knowledgeable about what the broadcast world is doing so I ask here hoping maybe someone from the
Society of Broadcast Engineers can tell me if AM broadcast is indeed going the way of the dinasour as this gentleman asserts.
Following is paragraph I question:
   

In replying, I am torn between my interests for furthering the preservation
and the operation of old equipment and the need for the ARRL to remain
"prgressive" as seen by international frequency determing agencies that
control our allocations.
AM as well as almost every analog form of communications have been totally
abandoned by the engineering communities around the world as outmoded
and obsolete.
There is indeed even hostility to its continued existence at the international level.
SW BC is scheduled to completely abandon AM by switching to a form of
SSB with a pilot carrier in the near term.

Regards
Q, W1QWT

[WA3VJB]

Q,

It's pretty cool that you have taken direct action in conversations with your local reps. The receptiveness you describe reminds me of how my phone call was received by the Canadian IARU representative, which was refreshingly very cordial.

I don't have the expertise to reply to your question as to whether the engineering community has starkly "abandoned" analog to the extent suggested. Worldwide, the aeronautical bands are on AM, and HF aeronautical worldwide is on SSB. HF maritime worldwide is on SSB, so there are several international examples to the contrary. Aren't the space shuttle and the International Space Station running analog air-to-ground comms too ?

It may be more suitable to distinguish the venues in which AM is comparatively discussed.

One problem with comparing our hobbyist-type AM to the commerce-based AM found in other services is the economic basis we do not have to consider.  Just as "digital" made sense for certain services to produce a greater revenue stream in a given slice of spectrum, I am sure that the remaining shortwave broadcasters are trying to cut as much overhead as possible.

As for spurning any modes that do not have the novelty of "digital," I again submit that the hobby we enjoy does not get measured by the style or progressiveness or efficiency of our non-commercial, non-essential signals.

Now about this fallacy perpetuated in some circles that ham radio needs to sell itself to the spectrum gods by showing how efficient we are at using our allocations.

Several quick holes can be punched in that approach, starting with the inefficiency represented by ANY unused spectrum that can be observed at any given time of monitoring across all our bands, but especially from 10 meters through UHF. We are under no mandate to try to achieve maximum band loading, so holes in our activity where nothing is going on do not create an "image" problem most of the time.

An exception, since addressed by the FCC to some extent, was the size of the CW reservations on HF that were oversized and did not match the typical level of operating use. On 75 and 40 meters, the areas set aside for CW now more closely represent the likely patterns of occupancy.

I note in passing that the FCC rejected the ARRL's inadequate bid to reapportion these bands toward popular phone activity by a mere 25Kc, and further rejected their proposed protected areas for digital communications that have not caught on to warrant reserved space.


Another hole in the theory of using efficiency to help bolster our claim on spectrum is the fact none of our communications are essential or revenue-producing. They all are chit-chat, except for emergency traffic. So chit chat taking place on CW has no greater claim on spectrum than chit chat on a phone mode, including AM, and including digital.

Digital chit chat will not make ham radio look more efficient than analog chit chat.

So, the metrics that are applied to our continued use of analog communications, including AM and SSB, are not the same as those applied to commercial or public service (police/fire) spectrum usage, in my way of looking at it.

I've probably gone on way too long, but I feel the need to dispute the idea that because the non-hobbyist world of radio has bought into "digital," that it must be part of our sales pitch too.

[WA3VJB]

Thanks Mack, I initially got that from Mexico's representative at the IARU Region 2, a good guy and helpful to us.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Gary and all:

I'm the CE of several broadcast stations here in the west; I was the first to support and  bring IBOC digital multicasting to this area; I've been responsible for, and built,  a state of the art digital recording studio here in the Denver area, (Willie Nelson, CSNY, Widespread Panic, Stevie Nicks, Sting, Robert Plant and a hundred more)

The fact that new and cutting-edge technology exists doesn't mean unplugging the older ones by mandate is a wise move. I still love our analog AM and FM broadcasting and I'm still working to make same the best that I can. I'm learning something new every day.

We're all in this together, regardless of favorite ham mode. The thought of disenfranchising ANY group of hams for no valid reason whatsoever diminishes us all.

It's a crock.

[WA3VJB]

Bill,
I will take the finger, seeing from whence it comes, but I think we are on the same side.

It's fine to present a balanced competency or affinity for digital and analog modes in professional and avocational venues.

I just will not accept that "digital" as a category is automatically preferable in our hobby.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Paul:

This is like the pot-stirring by Wayne Green and friends a long time ago re: AM and SSB.

We are on indeed the same side of this particular issue.

To disenfranchise any group of hams is a terrible thing to do. I don't operate packet, slow scan TV, or much CW, but I would be equally outraged if our brethren using those modes were to be outlawed by either hostility or indifference.

I'm going to restrain my further comments on this matter- I don't exactly feel like being diplomatic to anyone that would take a pair of side-cutters to my mic cord.
My apologies to anyone who might have been offended.

[k1qar]

Had a lengthy email exchange with Mr Sumner today. 

His reply to my initial post was so fast (4 minutes) and unresponsive to my concerns that I assumed he had'nt read it, and said so.  Needless to say, I got his goat.  Several evasive replies later, coupled with the whole sneaky nature of this "ban-plan" thing, and I've had enuf.

Resigned the ARRL today. 

Ted, K1QAR

[WQ9E]

Ted, 

I understand your feeling.  After membership "services" neglected to respond last week to either of my email requests for membership cancellation I had to spend about 10 minutes on the phone yesterday to accomplish the task.  It is a shame what has happened to the league but I have concluded that the only thing they understand is money (or the withholding thereof).  Between the constant begging for donations, support of wacker/emcomm world, support of winlink, and now the various bandplans I think they have finally alienated a sufficient number of people that either change will occur or they will suffer the same ultimate fate as every organization that ignores their membership and instead focuses upon internal pet projects.  Something all of our business students understand before they get out of their intro to marketing course is the marketing concept which states quite simply; "find out what your customers want and provide it for them".  The league has adopted the concept espoused by Lenin, Mao, and others; "we know what is best for you and we will watch out for you foolish and ignorant little children" and apparently our dear comrades in Newington don't want anything standing in the way of the rush to digital. 

The good new is that as the membership and circulation continue to fall then advertisers will be unwilling to continue to pay the current rates charged for QST.  It has been quite a while since our local Barnes and Noble have had QST on the rack and I am sure they are not the exception; fortunately CQ is still available.  At some point financial pressures will force changes within the league.

As a footnote, I find the pressure that was put on repeater owners to go with tone access quite humorous.  Although some of the most populous areas may still have crowding/interference issues the use of 2 meter FM has dropped so dramatically from its peak that many repeaters only come on to ID.  Another case of a solution in search of a problem.

Rodger WQ9E

[k4kyv]

Here is an interesting posting that showed up on the AM Reflector, from the UK.  The emphasis in bold print is mine. If Howard's observations are even remotely close to reality, things look pretty dismal. A harbinger of things to come on this side of the pond, or are we already there?

IARU & national societies. A view from the UK

I follow the bandplan debate with great interest, albeit from
the UK perspective.

Perhaps you are lucky that your national society does sometimes
respond to grass root pressure. Here in the UK, those running
our national society are not really accountable to the grass
roots, largely ignore them, and get away with it

As for experimenting, DIY and AM, these do not figure
high up in management's list of priorities. There are
salaried staff to pay, publication deadlines to meet,
and advertisers to keep happy.

Granted there remain some volunteers who do good work
within UK's national society, but mainly it is run as a
business, or as one insider described it, it is now,
first and foremost, a trade association, looking after
the interests of the big dealers and advertisers.

It seems though that membership of UK's national
society is flagging, and gimmicks like one year's new
membership for 10 gbp, provided you sign a bank
direct debit form for the full amount next time, are
now the fashion, and as everyone here knows, the
management hopes people forget to cancel the direct
debits.

When we had new licensing rules forced on us a bit back,
thus opening up the bands to every tom, dick and harry,
unsuccessful attempts were made to change the official
name of the hobby from amateur radio to hobby radio....a
sort of amalgam between ham radio and CB. People who
enjoyed experimenting, diy or antiquities like AM were
regarded as dinosaurs.

What shows is that so many of the new people, having
licenses given on a plate or with their cereal packets,
don't retain interest in radio very long. What we see
here is an exercise to broaden interest in the dumbed
down hobby, and poach computer addicts in order to sell
more riceboxes. In doing that, it has alienated many
one time keen mature hams. Our bands are quiet, if not
almost deserted much of the time, unless there's a contest
on.

So I wish you all good luck in seeing off your national
society management's bandplan machinations along with
the IARU's attempt at self glorification.


73..Howard/G3RXH

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

LOL. His description of the national society in the UK sounds surprising like the ARRL. He is a little off in the first paragraph with "Perhaps you are lucky that your national society does sometimes respond to grass root pressure." I'd say not.

Bill, you are right on. AM, or any other mode does not need to be outlawed to allow newer modes to flourish. If it's really about experimentation and new modes, less regulation will aid such, not more.

[wd8das]

Since I've been FAR from satisfied with the answers we're getting regarding the new Region 2 bandplan, I sent another message to ARRL and IARU Region 2 officials today, emphasizing my concerns about the new bandplan and taking a slightly different approach:  pointing out that the existing plan is far better than the new one.  Here's what I wrote, and the response I received from the President of the ARRL.   If you've been following this issue you should get a laugh out of it.  Guess what?  I'm ignorant and wrong again.

73  Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

ARRL and IARU Officials -

I see that the IARU has adopted, effective January 1, 2008, a new
voluntary band plan for Region 2 that would place restrictive
limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths and overlooks
commonly-used modes and practices on the bands 160 - 10m.

I am against such bandwidth and mode controls - tight regulation and
restrictions like these goes completely against the experimental and
innovative nature of ham radio.  The new Region 2 plan does not match
common practice on the bands and would likely be ignored by thousands
of operators.   What about AM operation?  How is bandwidth defined and
measured?

Voluntary or not, my position is that we need no such plans restricting
operation by bandwidth. Bandplans like this have a history of
increasing the stress among amateurs with arguments and
finger-pointing.   And without the details of how bandwidth is to be
defined and measured, the figures in the bandplan are meaningless -
except to cause fights among hams as they argue about them!

The existing IARU Region 2 bandplan is excellent - why the need for
change to bandwidth specifications?

Thank you.

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

Steve,

Thank you for your email.

Your information is not correct. The IARU Region 2 band plan will not
restrict AM operators in any way and you will notice no change whatsoever to
your operating preference as a result of it.

ARRL has no regulatory petition pending, proposed or planned that would
limit or restrict AM phone operation in any way.

I have copied your ARRL Division Director, Dick Isely, W9GIG, on this email
so he will be aware of your comments as well.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -

[wd8das]

My further response to the ARRL President...

- - - - - - - - -

w5zn@arrl.org writes:

>Your information is not correct. The IARU Region 2 band
>plan will not restrict AM operators in any way and you
>will notice no change whatsoever to your operating
>preference as a result of it.

I'm not relying upon second-hand information.  I've corresponded with IARU Region 2 officials, who indicated that the intention was indeed to limit bandwidths of various digital and phone modes, at the suggestion of an ARRL representative.  And I've read the new plan myself, both the first edition and the later revision - I'll attach copies of them to this email for your inspection. 

The new plan calls for SSB max bandwidth of 2.7 kHz.  It mentions 6 kHz bandwidth AM only on a couple small ranges on a couple bands.  This is much more restrictive than our present IARU Region 2 band plan, is it not??  Look for yourself.

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS


- - - - - - - - - - -

[k4kyv]

Here is a  copy of the e-mail I  sent to the delta division director, and CC'ed to other ARRL officials.  I am waiting for their response.

Henry R. Leggette, WD4Q
Delta Division Director


Dear Mr. Leggette:


I have at least two major concerns regarding the IARU voluntary band plan
for Region 2, slated to go into effect on 01 January, 2008.

I am aware that this bandplan will be voluntary and as such cannot legally
be enforced unless its provisions are written into the national government
regulations, but quoting from the preamble that introduces the band plan,
"it is suggested that Member Societies, IN COORDINATION WITH THE
AUTHORITIES, INCORPORATE IT INTO THEIR REGULATIONS and PROMOTE IT WIDELY
with their radio amateur communities (emphasis mine)." Therefore, even
though this band plan would not have the force of law per se, it goes
against many present-day operating practices and could potentially block new
modes with bandwidths wider than that of communications quality SSB,  and it
specifically encourages Region 2 nations to incorporate the suggested
bandwidth and other limitations into their government-sanctioned amateur
regulations .

The "Maximum Bandwidth" column clearly suggests limitations to occupied
bandwidth, per the "Explanations" footnote:   "Bandwidths - The number in
the bandwidth column always refers to the maximum allowed."

The purpose of a voluntary band plan is to agree on how the users of various
modes of emission will share the frequency allocations within each amateur
band.  The purpose is not to set emission standards.  Maximum transmitting
bandwidth falls under the category of emission standards. The "Maximum
Bandwidth" column, which appears to be an adaptation from the IARU Region I
band plan, should be deleted altogether, or else it should be made to
clearly refer to NECESSARY bandwidth, not OCCUPIED bandwidth.

Specific limitations of occupied bandwidth are  inappropriate for the
amateur service, given its fundamental basis and purpose.  Amateurs should
be allowed the maximum practicable degree of flexibility for
experimentation, communication and self-instruction in the radio art. Most
of us employ receivers with variable selectivity, allowing us to adjust our
reception for a wide variety of band conditions, including the degree of
interference and congestion.  We should likewise have the same option with
our transmitted signals, to appropriately adjust transmitting bandwidth
commensurately with the degree of congestion in the vicinity of our
operating frequency.

Of equal concern is the apparent curtailment of the use of conventional
double-sideband AM voice transmission and other modes that exceed the
occupied bandwidth of communications quality SSB. Conforming to the
currently proposed bandwidth limitations would allow AM to be used
throughout the voice portion only in the 40 metre band.  This mode would be
limited to specific, narrow segments of the 80, 20 and 10 metre bands, and
there is no provision at all for AM in the 160 metre band, even though this
is one of the most widely used bands by AM operators in the United States
and Canada, and there appears to be substantial use of this band for AM
operation in other countries south of the US border, particularly in Cuba.
Likewise, there is no provision for AM operation in the 17, 15 or 12 metre
bands.

Even though this band plan would not be the law, it is to be assumed good
amateur practice to follow the regional band plan, and it will likely cause
conflict between licensees who choose not to follow it, and those who would
insist that it should be treated like the law. The band plan in its present
form appears to promote the inclusion of unnecessary restrictions in the
accepted operating practices and national amateur radio regulations of all
countries in Region 2. We must not forget that there are other nations in
Region 2 besides the US and Canada. Even though the publication of this band
plan may not directly or immediately affect US or Canadian operation,
amateur radio is international in nature and it would equally inadvisable to
promote unnecessary restrictions to amateur radio operation in other
countries in the Americas.

The revised IARU Region 2 can be made acceptable by making two minor
changes.  I strongly urge that the League, as my representative at IARU, to
attempt to have this band plan revisited before its final issuance on 01
January 2008, and that all references to occupied bandwidth be deleted.  I
also urge that all forms of voice transmission be referred to simply as
"phone", whose definition  would include all forms of single, double and
independent sideband amplitude modulation, with full, reduced or suppressed
carrier, as well as frequency modulation under the stipulation that below
29.0 mHz, the modulation index not be greater than 1 at the highest
modulation frequency.

Cordial 73,

Donald Chester, K4KYV

[W3SLK]

I haven't had the time to look but what is the take on this band plan from the other ham related boards, i.e. QRZ.com, eham glowbugs etc. Are they, (slopbucketeers and CW's) just as pissed off as we or are we appearing as the only group, designated by our mode, that is solely against this proposition?