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

[W9AD]

There has been an interesting uncanned exchange of e-mails between my buddy Larry/W8ER and Joel Harrison/W5ZN (ARRL President) posted at: http://www.amham.com/

[wd8das]

Response to WD8DAS from ARRL President:

- - - - - - - - -

Hi Steve,

We believe amateur radio operators should exercise good operating practice by using our allocated spectrum efficiently, so a recommendation in a voluntary band plan is a good thing and we hope radio amateurs would use it as a guideline for their operating preferences.

I don’t believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation, though.

Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always, is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from all sources, including the AM community, and we will continue to work toward the best possible band plan for the entire region, as well as to continue to recognize existing modes of operation in the United States in our band plans.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -

[wd8das]

My reply to the ARRL President :

- - - - - - - -

Joel wrote:


Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always, is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from all sources,


I'm glad to hear that - but why isn't it happening this time?!  Why was the bandplan now set to go into effect on January 1, 2008, finished without seeking any input?  And when the document was discovered on the IARU Region 2 website, and I expressed my concerns, ARRL officials acted very defensively and "cagey" about it.

For example, your answer to my question "Should American hams ignore the IARU Region 2 bandplan?" was a bit evasive.  You're saying the new plan doesn't have any power over US hams, but bandplans represent sent "good amateur practice" and so we should follow bandplans.   

Of course I know I can continue to operate as I already do, Joel.  The IARU and ARRL have no regulatory authority now.  But I see ample evidence that both organizations seek to obtain just that kind of authority in the future.  The bandplan document in question says so right in the first paragraph, and the IARU and ARRL voted in favor of the new plan.  And in 1998 the ARRL asked the FCC for a declaratory ruling that "good amateur practice" means following bandplans.  That's pretty clear isn't it? 

So bandplans do matter.  And hams whose present modes and practices are not covered in the bandplan will eventually find themselves to be outlaws.  My main message is that bandplans should be based on current practice of the hams on the bands and a wide range of opinions about future plans.  Not from arbitrary decisions made by small committees.

Let me lay it all on the table.  Here is a summary of the actual written messages I have so far heard from IARU and ARRL Directors and Officials on this issue:

IARU Region 2 folks report:

1.  B/C committee member Rinaldo of the ARRL called for the specific mention of relatively narrow bandwidth specifications in the new bandplan. 
2.  ARRL says hams need to use narrower bandwidths.

ARRL Directors and Officials have told me:

1.  Yes, ARRL voted in favor of  the new bandplan, and it is a good thing. 
2.  Members who are questioning the League on this issue are ignorant.
3.  The new plan is only voluntary, so don't worry about it.
4.  The new bandplan won't have any impact on operations in the US.
5.  Don't worry, the ARRL doesn't plan to seek FCC regulatory changes on this matter for at least two years.
6.  The new bandplan doesn't have any "power" over US hams, and but remember we should follow bandplans if we are to be good amateurs.

I'm very disappointed in the League on this issue.  I recently wrote and submitted an Op-Ed piece summarizing this whole business to QST.  I hope you will help it l be published quickly so at least some information about this issue can reach the members.

Steve WD8DAS


- - - - - - - -

[Pete, WA2CWA]

There has been an interesting uncanned exchange of e-mails between my buddy Larry/W8ER and Joel Harrison/W5ZN (ARRL President) posted at: http://www.amham.com/

I don't see how the ARRL President couldn't be more clear in his response, dated 11/17/07, at the link mentioned in the above quote. Paragraph's 3 and 6 are most interesting.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I don’t believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation, though.

I guess he and the ARRL will be petitioning the FCC to change or remove the following section of Part 97.

97.307(a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

Have these guys even read Part 97?

Response to WD8DAS from ARRL President:

- - - - - - - - -

Hi Steve,

We believe amateur radio operators should exercise good operating practice by using our allocated spectrum efficiently, so a recommendation in a voluntary band plan is a good thing and we hope radio amateurs would use it as a guideline for their operating preferences.

I don?t believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation, though.

Any band plan, including the IARU Region 2 band plan, is a living document that should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The ARRL, as always, is open to input for future IARU Region 2 band plan revision proposals from all sources, including the AM community, and we will continue to work toward the best possible band plan for the entire region, as well as to continue to recognize existing modes of operation in the United States in our band plans.

73 Joel W5ZN

- - - - - - - - -

[WA3VJB]

ARRL people are circling the wagons.

They have persuaded the non-U.S. delegates in Region 2 to discontinue answering questions about the plan if they come from U.S. licensees.

[k1qar]

                                                  ROTTEN    RADIO 

I recently corresponded with the ARRL regulatory department head, Dan Henderson, regarding a new IARU  HF “voluntary” band plan.  He asked that I share my concerns with Dave Sumner, who also failed to explain how it would help amateur radio.
 
I appreciate the hard work the League has been doing to protect our hobby, especially the new 500 kHz band and CW practice transmissions.  However, evidence continues to surface that the league may be responsible for the 2700 Hz limit in the IARU band plan as part of a sneaky campaign for eventual enforcement of a similar US bandwidth rule.

President Harrison’s words on this subject to Gary, W7EK, were, “...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....”       ARRL history with RM 9259, however, reveals an opposite intent: “…The ARRL also request we [FCC] 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….”  As we all know, “good amateur practice” is the current FCC law.

This duplicity raises the question whether ARRL “no longer adequately represents the interests” of US hams, a sin punishable by termination of the League’s membership in IARU (Article II, paragraph 11C, IARU constitution).

It gets more rotten.  If successful, this ARRL request will effectively outlaw AM and FM as we know it, and any future wideband data below 28 MHz.  AM operators, which are the epicenters of technical on-air discussions, now are suddenly finding their considerable equipment investment in jeopardy.  What the League seeks would also stop work on data modes wider than 2700 cycles, which often do not increase crowding, as the increased bandwidth is offset by proportionately less occupancy time.  It would kill, for example, wide band data emergency communications that reduce battery drain and save first responders’ time.  A stated ARRL objective, to entice internet-savvy youth into the hobby, would be enhanced by development of  TCP/IP over HF.   The bandwidth for this robust content such as GIF images would likewise be prohibited.
In addition, the crowding-control benefits of the band plan appear largely transitory.  As new 2700 cycle compliant equipment is sold to the coming cohort of no-code licensees, and older equipment wears out, the band plan’s objective would naturally come to pass.
Once again, the question is raised whether ARRL is acting “contrary to the interests of amateur radio” (Article II section 11B), another sin punishable by termination of its IARU membership.

It may be time to apply the Wouff Hong, lest T.O.M. spin in his grave.


Ted Robinson,  K1QAR

[Pete, WA2CWA]

ARRL people are circling the wagons.

You sure it's ARRL people that are circling the wagons

They have persuaded the non-U.S. delegates in Region 2 to discontinue answering questions about the plan if they come from U.S. licensees.

And, you know this how??

[Pete, WA2CWA]

                                                  ROTTEN    RADIO 
President Harrison’s words on this subject to Gary, W7EK, were, “...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....”       ARRL history with RM 9259, however, reveals an opposite intent: “…The ARRL also request we [FCC] 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….”  As we all know, “good amateur practice” is the current FCC law.

Since the FCC already indicated in a legal ruling 9 years ago that they were not interested in considering voluntary band plans as part of any going forward legal ruling, why would the ARRL consider it again in such a short time frame. That makes no sense and serves no purpose for all U. S. amateurs.

It gets more rotten.  If successful, this ARRL request will effectively outlaw AM and FM as we know it, and any future wideband data below 28 MHz.  AM operators, which are the epicenters of technical on-air discussions, now are suddenly finding their considerable equipment investment in jeopardy.  What the League seeks would also stop work on data modes wider than 2700 cycles, which often do not increase crowding, as the increased bandwidth is offset by proportionately less occupancy time.  It would kill, for example, wide band data emergency communications that reduce battery drain and save first responders’ time.  A stated ARRL objective, to entice internet-savvy youth into the hobby, would be enhanced by development of  TCP/IP over HF.   The bandwidth for this robust content such as GIF images would likewise be prohibited.
In addition, the crowding-control benefits of the band plan appear largely transitory.  As new 2700 cycle compliant equipment is sold to the coming cohort of no-code licensees, and older equipment wears out, the band plan’s objective would naturally come to pass.
Once again, the question is raised whether ARRL is acting “contrary to the interests of amateur radio” (Article II section 11B), another sin punishable by termination of its IARU membership.

Ted Robinson,  K1QAR

All the more reason the ARRL would not consider the revised voluntary Region 2 band plan as gospel for any future proposed FCC ruling.

[Tom WA3KLR]

"why would the ARRL consider it again in such a short time frame"?

Perhaps because they are now focused on an involuntary bandplan plan.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"why would the ARRL consider it again in such a short time frame"?

Perhaps because they are now focused on an involuntary bandplan plan.

Since several ARRL officials have already stated in e-mail responses back to numerous people that is not the case, including the Harrison response posted on 11/17/07 (here http://www.amham.com/), your statement seems to be based not on anything factual.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

Since several ARRL officials have already stated in e-mail responses back to numerous people that is not the case, including the Harrison response posted on 11/17/07 (here http://www.amham.com/), your statement seems to be based not on anything factual.

Well ok Pete, then who is the liar here? The guy from Brazil that stated that it was being pushed by the ARRgghhL or Sumner and company? Since I haven't been screwed over by anyone in Brazil, my money is the lamebrains in Newington that you tend to hold high upon a pedestal.

[wd8das]

How can we "believe" what the officials are telling us when they have provided several conflicting messages on this subject?

ARRL Directors and Officials have told me, in writing, variously:

(A)  ARRL voted in favor of the new bandplan, and it is intended for US amateurs to follow as well as the rest of the hemisphere.   
       versus
(B)  The new bandplan won't have any impact on operations in the US.  It is only meant for "the other countries in the region".

      and

(X)  The ARRL won't seek FCC regulatory changes to include bandwidth for the next two years.
       versus
(Y) The ARRL has no plans to seek FCC regulatory changes on this matter.
      versus
(Z) The ARRL hopes to secure FCC regulatory changes on this matter as soon as practical.

What *is* their position? 

Put these varying answers in the context of the League's recent attempt to get the FCC to put bandwidth controls into the regulations, and after that failed, the announcement in print that the ARRL will revisit this issue, and the absolute silence on the Region 2 bandplan revision planning and development until it was voted on and a done-deal, and it smells pretty bad. 

The highly defensive responses from League officials to my initial gentle and respectful inquiries was not reassuring - when people react like that it is usually because they are very sorry you discovered what they were hiding.

Steve WD8DAS

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Well ok Pete, then who is the liar here? The guy from Brazil that stated that it was being pushed by the ARRgghhL or Sumner and company? Since I haven't been screwed over by anyone in Brazil, my money is the lamebrains in Newington that you tend to hold high upon a pedestal.

Maybe you should read paragraph 3 (again?) of the Harrison response, dated 11/17/07, http://www.amham.com/ and look for the misrepresentation somewhere else.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

Maybe you should read paragraph 3 (again?) of the Harrison response, dated 11/17/07, http://www.amham.com/ and look for the misrepresentation somewhere else.

Hmmm, I don't recall that Harrison was in attendance at the conference. Could it be that Sumner has his hand behind his shirt telling him what to say since Steve, WD8DAS, continues to hold their feet to the fire? Why can't Mr. Mouth-piece answer with simple yes or no answers? Why can't he be direct instead of trying to spin and evade those questions that have been put forth? That is why I'll believe what my dog is trying to tell me before I believe anything that comes out of Newington or their cronies!

[wd8das]

Could you state your case another way, Pete?  I don't understand what you are getting at...

I have read the paragraph you cite, Pete, several times.  It simply does not jive with my own experiences.  I don't know anything about a "U.S. radio amateur" that is "misrepresenting his comments".    I don't know anything about any phone calls to any officials -  I am going by the responses I received from ARRL and IARU officials after I wrote to them expressing my opinions and asking for more information.

Steve WD8DAS

[WA3VJB]

I look forward to when Pete starts posting some answers on here with a name and a quote attached to them.

I'm getting tired of doing his work for him   ; )

Seriously, Pete, why not obtain some answers on our behalf?
They trust you, you know them, and you seem to have some kind of interest in the subject matter. Do the League a favor and clear this all up for us, eh?

You want a list?

If they won't directly answer you, then you don't need us to tell you that they aren't giving straight answers, and you will be satisfied, at least in theory.

[W9ZSL]

Hi! Am an OT Ham who let his license expire, but nearing retirement I will get it back. AM is my baby. Was a broadcaster for 40+ years and intend to use parts from our old BC-1T to build a rig. Now we have this crap. It seems to me that some powers that be would religate AM to the same scrap heap as spark gaps. Ditto SSB vs. Digital. Am I wrong in my thinking, or should I continue to build my dream XMTR? I already scored a cherry Heath DX-60 for a driver and have the HW-10 RCVR to match. I also have a Kenwood 440 XCVR which is being restored, but the vibes I get from this thread is even this might exceed the insane bandwith restrictions proposed. Am I right or wrong?  Mike/Passage/ ex-K9ZSL.

[WA3VJB]

BUILD IT  !!

BUILD IT !!!

BUILD IT !!!

Don't let them get you down.

A lot of things have changed for the League in the past 20 years, for one thing, they have only 20 percent of license base as subscribers anymore. Can you believe it?

Yet, they act as if they are the kingdom and we are the pawns.

I DON'T THINK SO.
Get on with us soon and help show them otherwise.

[k4kyv]

One can find some interesting reading in the editorials of the old ham magazines.  In the early 30's there was controversy surrounding the League, much as there is to-day.  One of the chief criticisms was that it was run secretively, and secretary K.B. Warner drew fire similar to Sumner to-day, regarding his allegedly autocratic management style.  So what else is new?

In one news item from 1933, it was said that the League comprised only about 30 percent of the licence base at that time.

There was substantial rivalry between ARRL and the west coast publications RADIO and R/9, which merged into one publication in January, 1936.  I have an original copy of a letter between Robert Parmentier, who was the chief lab technician an HQ and also chief operator of W1MK (the predecessor to W1AW), and the editor of RADIO, regarding an article that Bob had submitted for publication in RADIO.  There were a  few jabs at the League, and the writer referred to League HQ personnel as "Warner and the little Warnerettes".  I knew Bob personally in his later years, and I found the letter in some old stuff his wife had given to me after he went to the nursing home in the mid 1980's.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Could you state your case another way, Pete?  I don't understand what you are getting at...

I have read the paragraph you cite, Pete, several times.  It simply does not jive with my own experiences.  I don't know anything about a "U.S. radio amateur" that is "misrepresenting his comments".    I don't know anything about any phone calls to any officials -  I am going by the responses I received from ARRL and IARU officials after I wrote to them expressing my opinions and asking for more information.

Steve WD8DAS

Actually Steve, my response "read the paragraph" was in response to SLK's post which preceded your post.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

How can we "believe" what the officials are telling us when they have provided several conflicting messages on this subject?

ARRL Directors and Officials have told me, in writing, variously:

(A)  ARRL voted in favor of the new bandplan, and it is intended for US amateurs to follow as well as the rest of the hemisphere.   
       versus
(B)  The new bandplan won't have any impact on operations in the US.  It is only meant for "the other countries in the region".

For A: If some amateurs in the U. S. want to follow the revised Region 2 voluntary band plan in part due to their typical operating habits, I see no problem with that.

For B: The FCC administrates all the rules and regulations that U. S. amateurs must follow. I have yet to see a FCC Report and Order that will change our rules and regulations on 1/1/08 that defines specific bandwidth limitations.

 

     and

(X)  The ARRL won't seek FCC regulatory changes to include bandwidth for the next two years.
       versus
(Y) The ARRL has no plans to seek FCC regulatory changes on this matter.
      versus
(Z) The ARRL hopes to secure FCC regulatory changes on this matter as soon as practical.

What *is* their position? 

Put these varying answers in the context of the League's recent attempt to get the FCC to put bandwidth controls into the regulations, and after that failed, the announcement in print that the ARRL will revisit this issue, and the absolute silence on the Region 2 bandplan revision planning and development until it was voted on and a done-deal, and it smells pretty bad. 

The highly defensive responses from League officials to my initial gentle and respectful inquiries was not reassuring - when people react like that it is usually because they are very sorry you discovered what they were hiding.

Steve WD8DAS

For X: Gee, I thought I said something like that but I was just speculating.
For Y & Z: At the BoD Meeting, July 20-21, 2007 and Executive Committee Meetings Sep. 27, 2007, and Oct. 6, 2007, the only mention of "regulation by bandwidth" was this at the BoD Meeting:
"36. Under agenda item 10, “Any other business” the Chair led the Board in a discussion regarding the recently withdrawn petition to segment the amateur bands based upon signal bandwidth, what has been learned from the experience, and what needs to be considered if the effort is resurrected in the future."

I would suspect that maybe they may not view this a "good time" to consider any new proposal on any type of regulation by bandwidth. So maybe regulation by bandwidth might be considered at some future time when member/nonmember input may lead to a more practical proposal.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I look forward to when Pete starts posting some answers on here with a name and a quote attached to them.

I'm getting tired of doing his work for him   ; )

Seriously, Pete, why not obtain some answers on our behalf?
They trust you, you know them, and you seem to have some kind of interest in the subject matter. Do the League a favor and clear this all up for us, eh?

You want a list?

If they won't directly answer you, then you don't need us to tell you that they aren't giving straight answers, and you will be satisfied, at least in theory.

Sorry, you're on your own on this one.

[wd8das]

Pete, I'm sorry, but I can only hope that you haven't read the various ARRL directors' and officials' messages we've passed along.  That would explain why your ideas on League motives seem to be based on how you'd *like* things to be, rather than how they actually are as represented by the words and deeds of the officials and directors themselves.

For example, you said:

>Gee, I thought I said something like that but I was just speculating.

But the quote in question was actually said straight-out by the Central Division ARRL Director.   Why would it matter what you were speculating upon?  Much more important are the actual words and deeds of the people involved.

If on, the other hand, you *have* read the information I've passed along, then I'm left to think that it is more important for you to help the League save face than to help ensure that we have sensible bandplans and regulations. 

Steve WD8DAS

[wd8das]

"Passage" wrote:

>Hi! Am an OT Ham... AM is my baby. Was a broadcaster
>for 40+ years and intend to use parts from our old
>BC-1T to build a rig. Now we have this crap.

AM is quite popular on the bands, much more so than for the past couple decades.  Don't hesitate to get back on the air and build that big rig.  We are have huge fun with AM on the bands right now. 

That's one reason why we are so vocal and firm in our opposition to the various attempts to hurt AM.  But we also see the importance of keeping our bandplans and regulations open and flexible, allowing a wide variety of modes both old and new. 

Steve WD8DAS