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

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Maybe Joel should read W9GIG's words.

I seriously doubt if another regulation by bandwidth proposal will be put
forth by the ARRL board in the near future.  We failed to educate the
U.S. amateur radio community about the history of and rationale for
our first proposal, and to make sure nearly everyone understood how
it would work.  The ARRL board of directors has to do it's homework
if we want to have regulation by bandwidth accepted by the U.S.
amateur radio community.

I support amateur radio HF regulation by bandwidth.  However, I will
not support an effort to rush another proposal to the FCC.  I have no idea how
long this educational process will take.  But I currently believe
anything shorter than two years from 1 JAN 2008 will fail.

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]

More from the ARRL President -

- - - - - - - - -

Steve, I know the Region 2 officials personally, and was with many of them just two weeks ago. I know what you and others were told and you are incorrect in your assessment. Of course, you are free to impose voluntary restrictions on yourself if you so chose, but it is not required by ARRL, the FCC Part 97 regulations in the United States or the Region 2 Band plan.

73 Joel W5ZN 

- - - - - - - - -

Thanks for the additional info, Joel.  And thank you for working through this with me.  I thought that we (the hams of Region 2) should be involved in the development of any changes to the bandplans so that the plan matches our present and expected use of the bands - thus my efforts to make my views known.

Just to clarify - do you and the League feel that American hams should ignore the Region 2 bandplan?

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - -

[WA3VJB]

Harrison has not resolved the preamble that calls on member societies to actively promote the plan to regulatory agencies.

Does he intend not to follow that preamble ?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Hilarious. Trapped by his own words.

[WA3VJB]

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?

Mike I haven't found much among other bandwidth users (not consumers).

I imagine many have bought into a passive acceptance that this is only a voluntary plan and can be ignored.

[KB2WIG]

 R/E the preamble, I guess he doesn't want " ... to impose voluntary restrictions on ... " himself .... ..

klc

[k4kyv]

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?

When the news was first released, there were a couple of threads on QRZ.com.  The  comments posted on the subject were mostly negative, citing Winlink and the failed bandwidth proposal, but I don't think very many were stirred enough to actually write or e-mail League or IARU officials on the subject.  As typical, the thread quickly deteriorated to an exchange of personal swats.  I have checked e-ham, but found nothing mentioned on the subject.  The format of their forum index makes it difficult to locate a thread on a random subject.

http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=e7856cc7e0f2fb91780ed82df91fc20d;act=ST;f=7;t=170734

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

There were probably three useful posts in that thread. The rest were parties with old feuds playing them out again in a new forum. Sad.

[WA3VJB]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Nov 15, 2007 2:37 PM
Subject: Region II Brazil
To: Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>
Cc: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, leandror@bellsouth.net, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


Joel,

I understand from several people that you have taken the lead in
responding to questions being raised about the ARRL's representation
of U.S. licensees at the IARU meeting in Brazil.

Please respond directly to the following questions to help resolve
this matter, which has generated far too much heat and not much light.

1. Will you immediately and publicly disclose the policy that was
handed to your representative to carry to the table? I specifically
wish to learn the predetermined basis for the bandwidth overlays that
ultimately were approved by the IARU. How were these numbers
developed, and with whom did you consult in establishing these
numbers. (all points in this question must be answered)

Basis for Question No. 1:
Your letter being sent to multiple recipients asserts, in part, that
"the ARRL Board of Directors ... determine the policy for ARRL's input
to IARU Region 2..."

~~~~~~~~~
2. How do you intend to square your group's endorsement of these
bandwidth overlays in the Region 2 plan, against the IARU's suggestion
that member societies promote these plans for consideration by
government regulators? Your answer must either be that you intend to
ignore that suggestion, or an acknowledgment that you intend to do
just that.

Basis for Question No. 2:
The same letter being sent to multiple recipients that states, in
part, "I can assure you that there are no plans to propose
incorporating any IARU band plan into the FCC rules."

The preamble to the IARU Region 2 plan asserts:
"It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the
authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely
with their radio amateur communities."
~~~~~~~

Please be advised that your answers in your emailed response will be
public record and distributed with attribution and in the context
conveyed above.

Paul

[Ed/KB1HYS]

For what it's worth, I have added my two cents.  I sent my comments direct to the Region 2 IARU folks. 

[K7EK]

I received the following reply in response to my message about the new band plan that would
take place in January, 2008.

Best regards,

Gary, K7EK


---

Gary,

 

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

---

[WA3VJB]

Over on the SPAR discussion board, AI4ET, Daniel Hawthorne,
offers this research.
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 1:02 am   
Mr. Joel Harrison W5ZN

Color me skeptical. Its not that I don't believe a single word you say; Its just that your words fly in the face of your organizations past actions. As the saying goes Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

From the FCC web site:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc

D. RM-9259

1.1 Background. On April 3, 1998, the ARRL filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling, RM-9259, requesting that the Commission declare that the phrase "good amateur practice" as used in the amateur service rules requires that control operators of amateur radio stations comply with voluntary band plans adopted by other amateur radio operators across the country and around the world. The ARRL also request we declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accordance with good amateur practice. It states that non-compliance with accepted band plans which causes interference to one or more amateur service stations that are operating in accordance with these accepted band plans should not be considered good amateur practice under any circumstances. It also states that as more users attempt to operate in increasingly crowded spectrum, it becomes more important for us to define minimal standards of "good amateur practice" in order to prevent interference by "rogue operators." It notes, however, that rigid enforcement of band plans is neither warranted or feasible, and it does not seek to fix the current band plans as they are, or to incorporate voluntary band plans by reference into the Rules. The Commission sought comment on this petition on April 21, 1998. In response to our request for comment, we received over seventy comments and reply comments.

1.2 Decision. One of the basic principles of the amateur service is that all frequencies are shared and no frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station. Voluntary band planning within the amateur service community, by licensees and representatives of licensees who have a vested interest in ensuring fair and effective use of amateur service frequencies, is a method that the amateur service community has long used to meet the requirement of Section 97.101 that each licensee and control operator make the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. It allows the amateur service community to accommodate the varied operating interests of licensees and the specific operating activities that a station or group of stations wishes to engage in without explicit regulation. Voluntary band planning also allows the amateur service community the flexibility to reallocate its spectrum among operating interests as new operating interests and technologies emerge or operating interests and technologies fall into disfavor. The Commission's role in amateur service band planning, especially on the HF and Medium Frequency amateur service bands, generally has been limited to establishing the emission types that can be transmitted in different frequency segments.

1.3 We believe that it is not necessary to define the term "good amateur practice" as used in the Rules as requiring that amateur stations comply with voluntary band plans or declare that any amateur station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is not operating in accord with good amateur practice. We believe that such definition would have the effect of transforming voluntary band plans into de facto required mandates. We do not believe that such a result would be consistent with the underlying intent of the Commission's policy regarding voluntary band planning in the amateur service.

1.4 In this connection, we note that numerous commenters object to the request, and to any attempt to establish mandatory band plans. We also note that the ARRL has stated that rigid enforcement of band plans is neither warranted or feasible. We nonetheless reiterate the requirements set forth in Section 97.101(d) of the Commission's Rules, which provides that no amateur operator shall willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio communication or signal. We will dismiss RM-9250 because the declaratory ruling requested therein is unnecessary.

[WA3VJB]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Nov 15, 2007 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Region II Brazil
To: Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>
Cc: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, leandror@bellsouth.net, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


Dear IARU Representatives,

As questions continue about the ARRL's representation of U.S.
licensees at the IARU Region 2 deliberations in Brazil in September,
an additional respected group of concerned licensees will be
contacting you to express their alarm.

Their letter will circulate to you along multiple paths, including
this courtesy copy I am supplying tonight.

Please be receptive to them.

I urge you to fully and quickly respond to our queries, and to
completely and publicly document the process that led to the problems
we are discussing.  The longer you delay, the more persistence you
will trigger.

Regards,

Paul Courson
WA3VJB
202 215 3885

~~~~~~~~~

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.

[w3jn]

Over on the SPAR discussion board, AI4ET, Daniel Hawthorne,
offers this research.



1.1 Background. On April 3, 1998, the ARRL filed a Request for Declaratory Ruling, RM-9259, requesting that the Commission declare that the phrase "good amateur practice" as used in the amateur service rules requires that control operators of amateur radio stations comply with voluntary band plans adopted by other amateur radio operators across the country and around the world.

//snip//

POW!!!!  Good one!

[Ed - N3LHB]

I received another reply from another official from one of my follow up emails from my original protest. I like the fact that he addressed the email to me, but neglected to erase Larry's name... seems more like an ad to join arrl...

ED,

 

Larry,

 

For what it is worth, I will support the continued use of AM for as long as I am the Great Lakes Division Director and so long as AM remains legal in this country.  In addition, I know of no one on the Board of Directors who will support abolishing or restricting AM.

 

Unfortunately, you have made yourself a bit vulnerable to irrational information such as this one about the Region 2 bandplan having any strength in the US.  This is because you don't receive all the pertinent information that is available to ARRL members -- such as my monthly e-mail newsletter.  Membership in ARRL would make it much easier for you to learn the truth facts on many issues

 

73, GL,

 

Jim

 

 

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director

ARRL Great Lakes Division

5065 Bethany Rd.

Mason, OH 45040

E-mail:  k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142

ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!

Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

[WA3VJB]

Membership in ARRL would make it much easier for you to learn the truth facts on many issues

That's right.

That's right.

Actually, I have heard some good things about Jim during the correspondence in the late discovery of the mess made in Brazil by the ARRL.  I tentatively list him in the category of Good Guys at the club in Newington.

He, for example, was one of the three regions initiating a for-real, statistically valid survey of subscribers, the results of which show nearly 20 percent of some 3000 respondents list AM as among their HF operating activities.

He used the survey results as preparation for an ARRL board meeting earlier this year, where the Directors, including himself, come up with the agenda that the paid staff are supposed to follow.

This is the start of a regaining of control by the Board over the cowboys like Rinaldo and Sumner, who have enjoyed being able to operate pretty much at their own volition in recent years.

These are facts.

This truth has not appeared in any League publication, so you didn't miss anything there. The publications are run by paid staff.

And the entire IARU Band Plan controversy is not being disclosed in any ARRL outlets either, so that's not where you're getting any information.

[W3SLK]

Here is the email I just sent to the three major players, Price, Sumner, & Rinaldo regarding said proposal. Take note, that I refer to organizations in the email the same way I do here on the board. (also no 'Mod-U-Lator' at the end)


Gentlemen,
   
My name is Mike Sawyer, W3SLK and I'm writing in response to the IARU Reg. 2 Band plan which was proposed in September 2007 and scheduled to go into effect January 2008. First a little information about myself, I’m not a radio engineer, nor am I associated with any commercial communications group. Nor am I a member of the A.R.R.(gghh)L. I have been involved with amateur radio since about 1974 and celebrate it as the reason for my employment in the electronics field.

    By now you have probably been inundated with numerous emails and communications regarding the band plan. It is not my intention to rehash what has been previously been stated but to ask three simple questions.

 

    Question#1: Why wasn't there any survey or input from amateur radio operators in the U.S. since the bandwidth proposals where requested by A.R.R.(gghh)L. representatives? Since the (be)League(d) only represents 20~25% of licensed amateurs in the U.S. and represents all of them at the IARU Reg. 2.

 

    Question#2: Why was the following paragraph that was present in the 1998 bandwidth proposal omitted from the 2008 proposal?

".....These band plans are voluntary and as such cannot legally be enforced, except in some countries in which the band plans are written into the national regulations. The vast majority of amateurs in all countries do conform to the IARU band plans and it is in our own interest that it should continue to be this way. The plans are prepared in a democratic way with input from any
country's member society. The plans are discussed, modified and voted upon at IARU Regional General Assemblies with each country (large or small) having only one vote. If an individual or group is not satisfied with the band plans as they are and has a suggestion for improvement then he should submit it, with as much documentation as possible, to his IARU member
society......"

 

    Question#3: If these will not effect our operation and are purely voluntary, why put so much time, effort, travel, and money into establishing them? If we are to keep operating the way we are now, we (U.S. amateurs) will not be the vast majority that conform!

 

    You will have noticed that I hold nothing but contempt and cynicism for the A.R.R.(gghh)L. Due to issues like F.C.C. Petition RM-11306, it has hardened my stance against the (be)League(d). Also having been employed in different venues of electronics, I am wise to the notion of "Incremental Change." I think I speak for my brethren/sisters of the amateur radio community when I paraphrase a quote from the poet Dylan Thomas: "We will not go gently into that good night!"

 

Sincerely,

Mike Sawyer
W3SLK

[KB2WIG]

The word is slowly getting out.....  From the Troy (NY) ARA newsletter,


http://www.n2ty.org/newsletter/tn1007.pdf


klc

[k4kyv]

I sent a letter to Delta Division Director, and CC'ed it to others at HQ, including Rinaldo and Sumner.  So far this is all I have received in return:

Hi Don,

Yesterday, I advised you I would reply to you as soon as time permits after the storm in Memphis and Shelby County.  I should advise you when I return home on Sunday night due to my ARRL travel in Newington, CT at ARRL HQ for a committee meeting.  I promise, you will get a response as soon after I return home maybe Monday or shortly there afterwards. 

I don't have my PC with me and I wanted you to know I have not forgotten your very important concerns.

Best of 73,
Henry R. leggette. WD4Q

It will be interesting if he follows up with anything additional from HQ.  FWIW, at least he, unlike the responses from HQ personnel that I have seen, has acknowledged that this concern is "very important".

[K6JEK]

Any bets on whether this letter to QST gets published? 


From: K6JEK <k6jek@comcast.net>
Date: November 16, 2007 12:48:36 PM PST
To: qst@arrl.org
Subject: Correspondence:  IARU coverage

The IARU Region 2 band plan deserves more explanation than it received in the recent QST -- a two sentence note on page 74 of December 2007 issue. This plan for our region outlaws ESSB entirely and prohibits AM transmission on all HF bands except 75 and 10 meters and restricts it severely on those. While we in the US know that this is a voluntary plan superseded by FCC regulations, it is nonetheless concerning that the IARU plan for our region contains these restrictions. I, for one, don't understand why the ARRL, the US representative to the IARU, voted for this plan. I would also like to understand where this is going. Does the ARRL support these restrictions? Will the ARRL be proposing them to the FCC in the future?  Will the ARRL seek to overturn this part of the IARU plan on behalf of US amateurs? Whatever the situation, the ARRL owes an explanation to all US amateurs on this subject.

Thank you,

Jon Kannegaard, K6JEK
Diamond Club Member

[WA3VJB]

Any bets on whether this letter to QST gets published? 

Sure they will print it.
It gives them a chance to talk down to you and all the other poor slobs who fail to understand.

If you want to bet whether they will ANSWER all your negative, full-of-attitude questions, then I've got some money here if anyone thinks so.

[/sarcasm]

For szhts & grins I sent it along to Larry, Dave, Paul and my other drinking buddies at the IARU, requesting a response.

[KA8WTK]

Any bets on whether this letter to QST gets published? 

It gives them a chance to talk down to you and all the other poor slobs who fail to understand.

Paul, you got it wrong. He does understand. The problem is that we are ignorant. We are ignorant of a complete set of background information that led to this band plan being proposed to and adopted by the IARU.

But, we DO understand what is and what CAN happen.

[WA3VJB]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Reinaldo Leandro <leandror@bellsouth.net>
Date: Nov 16, 2007 11:28 PM
Subject: RE: Region II Brazil
To: Paul Courson, Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>
Cc: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


 
 
 

 

Dear Mr. Courson,

 

This is to acknowledge your recent email regarding the Region 2 Band Plan.

 

The band plan is a voluntary guideline for operation.  The regulations in any country within Region 2 take precedence over the voluntary Region 2 band plan.

 

Any concerns regarding the band plan should be addressed to your own IARU Member Society which is the American Radio Relay League.  The American Radio Relay League can then address any concerns at the next regional triennial conference in 2010.

 

73,

 

Reinaldo Leandro YV5AMH

President, IARU Region 2
 

 

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Nov 17, 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Region II Brazil
To: Reinaldo Leandro <leandror@bellsouth.net>
Cc: Larry E Price <LPrice@iaru.org>, "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ" <dsumner@arrl.org>, "Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President)" <W6ROD@arrl.org>, co2rp@jovenclub.cu, "Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD" <gudiel@comtelsa.com>, pt2adm@pobox.com, lu2ah@szama.com, "Price, Larry (President, IARU)" <W4RA@arrl.org>, "Ellam, Tim, VE6SH" <tellam@mccarthy.ca>, "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)" <rleandro@cantv.net>, "Harrison, Joel (President)" <joelh@centurytel.net>, "Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President)" <n3kn@arrl.org>, "Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI" <W4RI@arrl.org>, k1ce@arrl.net, "Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <n3llr@arrl.org>, "Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)" <w3tom@arrl.org>


Hello Reinaldo,

Thank you for your reply.

A number of us have been unable to obtain responses from our member
society, which is why we feel the need to step around them.

We need specific details and documentation as to how their policy was
developed, with whom they consulted, and what the specific policy was
that their representative offered at the Region 2 table in September.

Additionally, the actions to repair the mess made in Brazil by our
member society will need to take place before the plan is implemented
in January.

Are you prepared to intervene and help us overcome their obstruction?

As I have mentioned and said explicitly, there are many, many U.S.
licensees who wish to support the IARU and its voluntary band plan for
Region 2.  We feel this is a bad approach as written, and that some of
the key components were floated by our member society and are
misguided.

This is why we need the support and assistance of non-U.S. delegates
at this time.

I also request your guidance on how we may seek recourse through the
IARU against our member society as part of your formal complaint
process. This too, will help convince our neglectful member society
that our concerns are substantial and need immediate action.

Paul


 

-----Original Message-----
 From: Paul Courson
 Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 8:17 PM
 To: Larry E Price
 Cc: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ; leandror@bellsouth.net; Stafford, Rod (Int'l Vice President); co2rp@jovenclub.cu; Gudiel, Marco Tulio, TG9AGD; pt2adm@pobox.com; lu2ah@szama.com; Price, Larry (President, IARU); Ellam, Tim, VE6SH; Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU); Harrison, Joel (President); Craigie, Kay (1st Vice President); Rinaldo, Paul, W4RI; k1ce@arrl.net; Edgar, William (Dir, Atlantic Div.); Abernethy, Tom (Vice Dir, Atlantic Div.)
 Subject: Re: Region II Brazil

 

Dear IARU Representatives,

 

As questions continue about the ARRL's representation of U.S.

licensees at the IARU Region 2 deliberations in Brazil in September,

an additional respected group of concerned licensees will be

contacting you to express their alarm.

 

Their letter will circulate to you along multiple paths, including

this courtesy copy I am supplying tonight.

 

Please be receptive to them.

 

I urge you to fully and quickly respond to our queries, and to

completely and publicly document the process that led to the problems

we are discussing.  The longer you delay, the more persistence you

will trigger.

 

Regards,

 

Paul Courson

WA3VJB

[AF9J]

Man Paul!,

NOBODY wants to admit having a part in this band plan!!  Much less doing anything to kill it.  Now the buck passing is beginning:

"Any concerns regarding the band plan should be addressed to your own IARU Member Society which is the American Radio Relay League.  The American Radio Relay League can then address any concerns at the next regional triennial conference in 2010."

Indeed!!  Look at the success we've had with the ARRL on this issue!  They're either rude, condescending, or only willing to admit off the record that it's not a good plan!  This is looking more like an endrun for regulation by bandwidth, with stonewalling thrown in, so that it can get enacted, before too much opposition to it builds up.   It's looking more and more, like once again, I'm going to be sending comments to the FCC, against an RM-11306 style band regulation proposal.

73,
Ellen - AF9J   

 

[k4kyv]

From ARRL Bulletin 8 ARLB008 1/20/98

The ARRL also will ask the FCC for a declaratory ruling to put teeth
into the voluntary band plan concept. The League wants the FCC to
affirm that any operation that conflicts with established, voluntary
band plans and causes interference or adversely affects those
operating in accordance with applicable band plans ''is not good
amateur practice'' and would be considered a rules violation.

From FCC 04-79 which was the R&O for 04-140 released April 15th 2004.

The Public Safety and Private Wireless Division (Division) previously addressed the issue of a mandatory band plan in lieu of a voluntary band plan in 1999.  In the Order, the Division denied a request that it declare that any amateur radio station control operator who selects a transmitting frequency not in harmony with those voluntary band plans is in violation of the Commission’s Rules.  It noted that such a result would be inconsistent with the fundamental principle of shared frequencies in the amateur service.  Additionally, the Division stated that granting the request would effectively transform voluntary band plans into de facto required mandates.  Rather, the Division found that because all amateur service frequencies are shared, our Rules do not assign a particular operating activity (such as using CW to attempt long distance international communications) to a specific frequency segment.  Because the petitioner has not presented any unique or changed circumstances to warrant a mandatory band plan, we find no basis to disturb this fundamental principle.

League officials continue to beat the same drum: the band plan carries no legal force, so AM'ers in the US have nothing to worry about, and the recently expressed concern is nothing more than alarmist propaganda spread by people with an anti-League agenda who fail to comprehend the voluntary nature of band plans.

No-one at IARU will admit to having anything to do with the bandwidth provision, nor will they even admit knowledge of who authored it (although it has leaked out that Rinaldo is the culprit).

True, it would not pose a direct immediate threat to present day operation in the US or Canada, but I suspect that the hope is that the bandwidth provisions will "acclimate" the international amateur radio community to the idea of "voluntary" bandwidth limitations, thus making it more likely that future proposals to give these limitations force of law will generate less opposition than did the recent failed attempt by the League in the US.

As previously noted, Region I and III band plans already carry provisions for specific bandwidth limitations.