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

[WD8BIL]

Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Actually Pete, It's nice to be able to give it a lift or shoot it down before it gets to that point.
As a public representative of Amateur Radio the League would be wise to test float their balloons more than they do.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Actually Pete, It's nice to be able to give it a lift or shoot it down before it gets to that point.
As a public representative of Amateur Radio the League would be wise to test float their balloons more than they do.

I have no argument with your statement, but in the case of this thread and issue, it wasn't ultimately their balloon to float.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference.. Even as a common courtesy. Doing so might have settled things long before now.

Seriously- I'm not the only one feeling treated like a mushroom because of how this was handled.
THAT'S the perception problem with Newington, if nothing else.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference.. Even as a common courtesy. Doing so might have settled things long before now.

Seriously- I'm not the only one feeling treated like a mushroom because of how this was handled.
THAT'S the perception problem with Newington, if nothing else.

It was posted in the ARRL Letter (distribution over 66,000), dated September 21, 2007. That's where I saw it prior to KYV's initial post. It wasn't a big deal then since it's a voluntary band plan and targeted mostly for the International Region 2 countries that wanted it modeled after the Region 1 band plan.
The ARRL Letter said:
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined
technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF
matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico
City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary
adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region
2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008.
The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with
regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to
reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing
an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention
of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was
approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive
Committee.

[Bill, KD0HG]

Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference.. Even as a common courtesy. Doing so might have settled things long before now.

Seriously- I'm not the only one feeling treated like a mushroom because of how this was handled.
THAT'S the perception problem with Newington, if nothing else.

It was posted in the ARRL Letter (distribution over 66,000), dated September 21, 2007. That's where I saw it prior to KYV's initial post. It wasn't a big deal then since it's a voluntary band plan and targeted mostly for the International Region 2 countries that wanted it modeled after the Region 1 band plan.
The ARRL Letter said:
The Conference next received the report of Committee B/C, a combined
technical and operational committee dealing with both HF and VHF/UHF
matters. This committee was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico
City, Mexico; the ARRL's Rinaldo, served as secretary. The Plenary
adopted all of the Committee's recommendations, including: A new Region
2 band plan for 160-10 meters was adopted, effective January 1, 2008.
The new plan is modeled on one adopted previously by IARU Region 1, with
regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to
reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing
an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention
of the radio amateur community; and an IARU Region 2 Diploma was
approved, with some details remaining to be worked out by the Executive
Committee.

Pete, limiting the publicity to the ARRL Letter isn't what I'd call a very wide dissemination of information regarding the matter. That's not a whole heck of a lot more effective than using the bulletins on W1AW to do so.

For a group of supposedly communications-savvy individuals to claim otherwise in this era of the internet is ridiculous.

Let me suggest to you that if the League wanted to deliberately cause misunderstandings, or get folks thinking that vital information is being deliberately withheld, they couldn't have found a better way than how this is being handled.

Do you subscribe to the "...if it quacks like a duck and if it walks like a duck..It might very well be a duck" theory of logic? If not, can you understand how such could be the case with many folks?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're actually NOT out to get you!"

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Since they are the USA rep to the IARU, it is their balloon, at least as far as USA amateurs are concerned. Last I checked, all involved with this thread were USA amateurs.

Only if it becomes a proposed FCC rule making, and at that time, there is a process in place to provide all of our comments for or against.

Actually Pete, It's nice to be able to give it a lift or shoot it down before it gets to that point.
As a public representative of Amateur Radio the League would be wise to test float their balloons more than they do.

I have no argument with your statement, but in the case of this thread and issue, it wasn't ultimately their balloon to float.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete, limiting the publicity to the ARRL Letter isn't what I'd call a very wide dissemination of information regarding the matter. That's not a whole heck of a lot more effective than using the bulletins on W1AW to do so.

I find it quite effective since it went to over 66,000 amateurs who subscribe to it and probably read by many others on their web site. I don't recall if amateur radio newsline reported on it. I see no reason for large dissemination of information that would not take any precedence over our own FCC rules and regulations. If individuals believe they are truly losing any privileges on 1/1/08, that's something they have to wrestle with in their own minds.

For a group of supposedly communications-savvy individuals to claim otherwise in this era of the internet is ridiculous.

Let me suggest to you that if the League wanted to deliberately cause misunderstandings, or get folks thinking that vital information is being deliberately withheld, they couldn't have found a better way than how this is being handled.

Do you subscribe to the "...if it quacks like a duck and if it walks like a duck..It might very well be a duck" theory of logic? If not, can you understand how such could be the case with many folks?

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're actually NOT out to get you!"

This could also said for those who pull statements out of context and then run with them to the world.

[W2INR]

I find it quite effective since it went to over 66,000 amateurs who subscribe to it and probably read by many others on their web site.

I find it interesting that the ARRL didn't even cover all their members. From your numbers Pete they only sent out the information to less than half of their members!!I guess the other members don't count just like non members. ( They must be ignorant)

Just for the record 66,000 is less than ten percent of the US Ham population. Now there is two ways to interpret that info, either these people (ARRL )have no clue or they did not want the amateur population to have this info. Either way reads bad for them and would incite suspicion from anyone with a brain cell or two.

Geez

What a waste

[wd8das]

Aw fer cryin' out loud!  The new IARU bandplan was already a *done deal* when it was mentioned in the ARRL Letter in September!  That announcement was not an attempt to get input from the members - it was to tell us we'd already been had.  And it really pissed the ARRL officials off that some of us didn't just roll over and take it.

Steve WD8DAS

[wd8das]

An interesting arrival in my email today...  I received a message from an anonymous person in reply to a message I'd sent directly to several ARRL officials.  Well, to be specific I should say it contained the same subject line as a message I sent only to a group of ARRL officials' addresses, with an "re:" added.   That same subject line was not used on any of my mailing list or web-board postings.  Interesting... might have been from someone who'd been forwarded a copy of my message by one of those officials, I suppose.

In any event, the message contained some poorly written name-calling and profanity, which I will mostly ignore, but the following line would be of interest to everyone I think...

>...senile old AM jerks! You been pissing on
>the league for too long.  you will all be dead in a couple
>years, so what you care?  run
>AM all you want nobody cares"...

Nice.  In the message I sent under that subject line I didn't even mention AM - just my oppositions to restrictive bandplans.  I guess it is another reference to AMers only being old-timers ready to kick the bucket.  That's certainly not my experience talking to guys on the bands.  And I'm only middle-aged at 44 years old, and I personally know 6 guys in their 20s and 30s that run AM quite a bit.

Steve WD8DAS

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I find it quite effective since it went to over 66,000 amateurs who subscribe to it and probably read by many others on their web site.

I find it interesting that the ARRL didn't even cover all their members. From your numbers Pete they only sent out the information to less than half of their members!!I guess the other members don't count just like non members. ( They must be ignorant)

You have to manually subscribe to the ARRL Letter. You don't get it just because you're a member. Blanket e-mails to "everyone" could be construed as SPAM.

Just for the record 66,000 is less than ten percent of the US Ham population. Now there is two ways to interpret that info, either these people (ARRL )have no clue or they did not want the amateur population to have this info. Either way reads bad for them and would incite suspicion from anyone with a brain cell or two.

Geez

What a waste

What would the amateur population do with this information? It doesn't affect any of our current FCC rules and regulations and no changes after 1/1/08, to any of our current operating frequencies, modes, or bandwidth here in the U. S.

However, as I said back on Reply 385: "Relative to the new voluntary Region 2 band plan, in hindsight, they(ARRL) probably would have saved themselves some grief if they had posted a blurb on their Amateur Radio News section of their homepage outlining the results of the Region 2 vote and what it would mean to the U. S. amateur community."

[Pete, WA2CWA]

An interesting arrival in my email today...  I received a message from an anonymous person

Steve WD8DAS

Steve: Can you drill down into the entire e-mail header to see where it originated from or possibly what e-mail server it came from? I know on my Juno account I have the option to show the full e-mail header. That's how I check for bogus ebay and paypal e-mails.

[WA3VJB]

Pete, at the very least this subject of the IARU band plan recommendations could have been aired out more thoroughly by the League.

The matter was brought to everyone's attention here- Probably the largest gathering of AM users on the internet-  largely by the concerned postings of Don and Paul, not by any official heads-up from the League or its representatives at the IARU conference..

Actually Bill I was late to this party, and it was a collective effort.
Tom, WA3KLR was my heads up
Then Steve WD8DAS and Don K4KYV
all have been on this relentlessly
I must say, when you look at the IARU constitution(s), the obligations of the "member society" have not been met for U.S. licensees. There's an IARU main constitution and a Region 2 set of by-laws as well. Between them, there is a whole list of actionable shortfalls that could very well lead to the ejection of the ARRL as "member society," should anyone care to pursue the research and follow the IARU's system of review to submit a complaint. If short of ejection, there seems to be a mechanism to put them on probation for how they've handled this matter.
Fiduciary Responsibility
Characteristically, the fiduciary has greater knowledge and expertise about the matters being handled. A fiduciary is held to a standard of conduct and trust above that of a stranger or of a casual business person. He/she/it must avoid "self-dealing" or "conflicts of interests" in which the potential benefit to the fiduciary is in conflict with what is best for the person who trusts him/her/it.

[w3jn]

Pete, saying "we passed some dumbass IARU region 2 bandplan" and actually spelling out what the bandplan is, and how it came into being, are two different things.  I have to agree with the crowd - the ARRL did a pisspoor job in that regard.  One would hope that at the VERY least the ARRL would fight for a bandplan that wouldn't screw anyone.  It doesn't appear that was the case - or, if it was, they're certainly mum on the details.

Steve DAS - indeed, drill down and get the headers from the email.  Post 'em here and we can get a pretty good idea of who they came from (unless they used gmail or fastmail.fm - those services strip the originating IP address).

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete, saying "we passed some dumbass IARU region 2 bandplan" and actually spelling out what the bandplan is, and how it came into being, are two different things.  I have to agree with the crowd - the ARRL did a pisspoor job in that regard.  One would hope that at the VERY least the ARRL would fight for a bandplan that wouldn't screw anyone.  It doesn't appear that was the case - or, if it was, they're certainly mum on the details.

It says in their final report, the revised Region 2 band plan was modeled after the Region 1 band plan, which became effective January 2006:
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf
and further it says: "with regional differences taken into account; steps were taken to try to reduce interference to national emergency Nets, including establishing an inventory of such Nets and calling their importance to the attention of the radio amateur community"

I seriously doubt that after the sub-committee (B/C) presented their report to all the IARU Region 2 members (who are these countries):
http://www.iaru-r2.org/directory/
they expected everyone to jump up, run back to their respective country, poll all their amateur licensee's for feedback, run back to the meeting, and make their vote known. This stuff doesn't work that way. Even if the ARRL chose not to vote for the plan, the plan still would have passed. Several countries within Region 2 already are using a very similar plan.

I don't see anyone getting screwed in the U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 9 years ago.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

I don't see anyone getting screwed in the U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 9 years ago.

(I highlighted)

This is the point that you and the (be)League(d) have pushed since it was discovered. But it is no longer a voluntary issue when the ARRgghhL attempts to tie it into Sec 97.101 Good Amateur Practice. I would still like to know what happened to the disclaimer that was at the bottom of previous IARU Reg. 2 band plans that stated that "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." This is what I feel the ARRgghhL is attempting to do by gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization. They are way out there on this one and the are WRONG!!!!!!!!

[WD8BIL]

Since the League DID NOT object to the SUGGESTED bandwidth limits in the plan AND DID NOT object to the the SUGGESTED footnotes of AM operation then one HAS to conclude they agreed with them.

It wasn't a big deal then since it's a voluntary band plan and targeted mostly for the International Region 2 countries that wanted it modeled after the Region 1 band plan.

And Pete, last time I checked we were in Region 2. So it really doesn't matter WHO it was targeting. AS I said before; Suggestions do become reality from time to time. Does 1500W PEP ring a bell ?

[WA3VJB]

Pollyannas who see nothing but a bright side to the Region 2 Band Plan taking effect in January don't realize ALL the licensees in the region are harmed by a band plan that endorses pointless restrictions, including unwarranted enumerated bandwidths.

It is portrayed as a suspiciously strong goal to want to "harmonize" Region 2 with other regions 'to the extent possible.' Did I miss an explanation as to why? The nearest I could come to a basis was the notification embedded in the plan regarding emergency nets.  Whoops, there goes the popular AM gathering point at 7290Kc, in case you want to support this plan. Did our 'member society' ask us whether this would affect us ?

But can that be all of the reason?  There were no documented interference issues presented alongside this proposal that we can find out about. It's secret. Well whatever else sure seems important, since the League people are this adamant to defend the making of this plan and downplay the plan's significance. Contradiction noted.

As John W3JN pointed out such a while ago in this thread, there's evidence of ulterior motive(s). Under the ARRL's scheme of things, we won't find out about these motives in advance. What good would that do? as one apologist and cheerleader here has pointed out.

Indeed.

Well for the rest of us, here's part of the list:

ARRL technology lobbyist Paul Rinaldo (paid staff) not only agreed with the 2.7Kc bandwidth enumeration, he proposed it, and then signed the ARRL's endorsement when the full IARU voted to approve it.

There's your proof. 

Harrison (volunteer ARRL president) suggests his group does not intend to comply with the IARU voluntary band plan, and further suggests that the club does not intend to promote the band plan at the FCC as the IARU said "member societies" are supposed to do.

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.

So why didn't the U.S. representative abstain from the vote?

There's your proof.

Furthermore, Harrison has said Rinaldo would have been told what the ARRL policy would be in advance of the Brazil meeting. Given that group's stunning defeat in front of the FCC on its failed bandwidth petition, do ya think they would have had bandwidth on their mind?  Rinaldo sure did, but he probably did that on his own. Wait, that's a problem too !

But regardless of any deliberations about applying the Region 1 plan as a template to Region 2, the club in Newington knew as policy it would have to recommend that U.S. licensees not comply with the voluntary band plan that emerged. There was no such notice given to the IARU or its Region 2 delegates.

I can't seem to get an answer from anyone as to which Region 2 countries lack a regulatory plan AND happen to need this IARU plan for guidance, as Harrison has claimed as part of the basis behind this plan. Bermuda, maybe? So the ARRL helped sell out U.S. licensees by confronting them now with a plan that we cannot support. I like that. I never got a chance to say whether I wanted my potential support pissed away.

The club has been dishonest with the IARU Region 2 delegates as to the ARRL's intentions, who probably assumed Rinaldo was probably acting in good faith with what he contributed to the discussions.

Had he exercised good judgment he would have sat this one out.  This poor judgment calls into question his qualifications as any kind of representative at the IARU, and certainly shall affect his candidacy, if he runs, to replace Larry Price as IARU president when the time comes.

Other players?  Sumner said he wasn't there, didn't have anything to do with it. Price said it's not his department; he was busy kissing footnotes at the ITU.

[Bill, KD0HG]

But can that be all of the reason?  There were no documented interference issues presented alongside this proposal that we can find out about. It's secret. Well whatever else sure seems important, since the League people are this adamant to defend the making of this plan and downplay the plan's significance. Contradiction noted.

Interesting point, Paul.

If there is/was so little significance to the IARU conference for US hams, why did the League pony up maybe $10K to bother sending folks to the meetings?

Seems like a waste of money just to hobnob.

If it's about the partying and nothing else, they could have sent Timtron at League expense.

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Considering the FCC's view on further regulations and restrictions to enforce in the amateur radio service, it makes you wonder if maybe this was also a way of poking them in the eye with a 'see? the rest of the world agrees with us' type of statement.

Got my lastest ER last night Paul, good job on that write up. Like the failed bandwidth petition, the more who see this type of nonsense, the better.

[W8ER]

I have been watching, with interest, the ARRL/IARU fiasco.

We know that the ARRL is directly responsible for introducing the terms of the band plan that everyone is upset about. Their fingerprints are all over it.

The fact that they have ramrodded it through committee and are actually defending it says it all .... THEY WANT IT!

Why isn't even a question. It's not rumor that they introduced a bandwidth regulation petition (FCC RM-11306) and were squashed in their attempt. They haven't changed their mind, they still want bandwidth regulation! What better way to lend credibility to their next attempt than to point to international acceptance of their plan?

The current President of the ARRL, a ceremonial position, has been charged with running interference and placating you with spin. Everything that he says has some basis in fact but is designed to quiet you down, distract you. He is misleading you!

1) STOP wasting time with the ARRL. You are not going to change their minds. They want this band plan in place! Emailing Joel Harrison is entertaining but worthless!

Do you get QST? If you do, you are directly funding the organization that is doing all of this! Remember these are the guys that petitioned the FCC to adopt bandwidth regulation last year. My question to you is why fight what they are doing and send them money to fund their action?

MOST IMPORTANT -- If you must communicate with the ARRL, notify them that you are no longer supporting their arrogant, self serving moves and immediately cancel your membership. If you continue to support them you can only blame yourself when they petition the FCC again, as they have already done over your previous protests, and as they have promised to do again! As an IARU member, they are obligated to do so (read the IARU bandplan preamble).

2) Somebody needs to take up the task of organizing a group of skillful communicators to take our case against the unacceptable terms of the  Region 2 bandplan directly to IARU officials before it goes into effect! I do not think that everyone of us writing emails to IARU officials will accomplish anything except to push them away. Although I would not suggest eliminating that tactic if all else fails.

I also think that the tactics employed by the ARRL, to push their bandwidth agenda, needs investigation and discovery.  You also should remember that the ARRL is is the highest of places within the IARU. That influence begins with Larry Price as President and Dave Sumner as Secretary of the IARU.

I am not talking about just Region 2 IARU officials either! The last thing that the ARRL wants is for other members of the IARU to get the message that the plan has little support among the largest group of amateurs in the Region! They probably do not understand that the ARRL does not have the backing of  a) the majority of US amateurs and b) many many of their own members.

Personally, I do not think that we can do anything to stop the implementation of this bandplan BUT I sure as heck would not continue to support the ARRL in their efforts to overregulate our hobby!



--Larry W8ER

[k1qar]

Larry

Checking out the League's Reply Comments back in 1998, they promised to devise a band plan by a "democratic process"  and to "assure accommodation of on air uses..  (paragraph 5)

Do you think, if they lied to Uncle Sam, it is far enough over the line to get them in trouble?   

[k4kyv]

Checking out the League's Reply Comments back in 1998... (RM-9259)

The comments in this proceeding were  largely not supportive of the League's proposal, but stated reasons for their lack of support reflected a misperception of the intent of the filing and its goal.  If anything, however, comments bespeak the need for the declaratory ruling requested, as they indicate a need to clarify Commission policy concerning band plans and the extent to which compliance therewith is an element of good amateur practice pursuant to Section 97.101(a).

Just as the amateur community "misperceived" the recent bandwidth petition.

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=2082900001

[Bill, KD0HG]

Communicate

[AF9J]

I see that CQ Magazine spoke out agains the new IARU band plan in the December issue's editorial.  The only problem, is that it was kind of in a backhanded manner!  They support regulation by bandwidth.  Their reason for speaking out against the new IARU band plan, is due to it being implemented/pushed by the ARRL in a snreaky manner.

Ellen - AF9J