The AM Forum
July 21, 2024, 02:26:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 16 [17] 18 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.  (Read 440166 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #400 on: November 22, 2007, 07:53:14 AM »

Ellen said:
Quote
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 sneaky manner.

I don't foresee that as a problem Ellen. The more people that are made aware of the ARRgghhL's underhanded-ness, the better. I don't know the justifications for bandwidth regulation and why the staff at CQ is for it, (sorry I don't read that rag), but it doesn't hurt to have more people on board to stop the madness that has overtaken "Haich kue" in Newington. Interestingly, I do know of one ham prepared to take on legal litigation against the (be)League(d), and he is dead serious.
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #401 on: November 22, 2007, 09:17:12 AM »

Here's the bottom line on this mess:

1)  ARRL had, by proxy, direct involvement in development of the bandplan
2)  Details of same not communicated to amateurs
3)  Questions directed to ARRL regarding this bandplan met with angry and denigrating email from one director
4)  Other questions to directors met with varying responses, including "It's not my job to respond to non-members"
5)  Because of past actions ('98 "good amateur practice" debacle, recent "regulation by bandwidth" proposal) very valid questions remain regarding the ARRL's motives
6)  ARRL will not unequivocally state (if they have, Pete, I've glossed over it in the preceding 22 pages) that they will NOT pursue future regulation-by-bandwidth, nor will they state they will NOT press the FCC (or support the ITU in pressing) for formal institutionalization of the IARU-2 plan.
7)  At the very least the ARRL has created a PR disaster for itself.  The ARRL needs to carefully and explicitly state the genesis of the plan and what the ARRL plans for future petitions with the FCC germane to the goals stated in the plan.  Cool And perhaps disciplining a certain director who unarguably presents a very, very, poor face to the ARRL.  HQ, when all is said and done, might be guileless.  I'm willing (barely) to give them the slight benefit of the doubt.  How they handle this will be the deciding factor in my mind.
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #402 on: November 22, 2007, 08:00:23 PM »

Good Evening, Happy Holiday Everyone,

 I too have been following this somewhat, quite frankly i am lost for words at this moment after reading down through the thread here. WOW... I will say this and not to add any insult to injury, but i am at a conclusion of, or that, there are positions of authority here that refuse or will not accept what ""No"" Means.. I have been noticing this more and more in all walks of life today. I can however speak from a position of "Ignorance" fact being I am Not educated or have a shingle to hang out of any kind, However, what i've learned or gained from, those here on the forum and close elmers i have come into knowing down through the years, This is Flat out wrong Period from any angle...

 I can do this much, i can push back the microwave and uhf work for a bit, bring into play the DSP system and the 813 machine at 2.7 KC's and put it on the air on 7.290 and let the masses see what that would sound like, sometimes showing how things work on the air is much more example rated than passing words back and forth.

 and maybe better medicine, is this what is wanted.

 I am very Disillusioned with this, i am not a very good writer, maybe not such an outstanding amateur, but i do know how and why circuitry acts, positions of authority are an entirely different animal.

73 and thank you for the use of the forum.

jack ka3zlr.
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #403 on: November 23, 2007, 01:28:19 PM »

HQ, when all is said and done, might be guileless.

That may possibly be true, but if so, they have certainly gone out of their way to cast doubt otherwise.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #404 on: November 23, 2007, 07:29:01 PM »

CQ Magazine Editorial, from Editor Rich Moseson, W2VU  reposted with attribution, December 2007 issue

Here We Go Again

Six months ago, we took the ARRL to task in these pages for the secretive way in which it modified and then withdrew its controversial FCC petition proposing HF subbands based on bandwidth rather than mode (“The Secret Society,” June 2007). Now, it appears to be doing an end-run around not only its members but the FCC as well. As Ronald Reagan once famously said, “Here we go again.”

 To briefly review where we’ve been so far on this issue, back in 2002, the ARRL Board of Directors decided that, in order to best keep pace with developing technology, it would propose that the FCC change the way it divides up the amateur bands from the current mode basis (e.g., CW, phone, data, image) to one based on signal bandwidth (e.g., 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 3000 Hz, 6000 Hz). This, the League reasoned, would encourage the development of new modes without needing specific FCC approval for each one, and would eliminate confusion over some of the existing newer modes, such as digital voice (is it voice or is it data?). The thinking was that not much would change in actual usage

—CW and narrow-bandwidth digital modes would continue to predominate in the 200 and 500 Hz segments, while SSB would continue to be the primary mode in the 3000 Hz areas (and the divisions would match up with the current dividing lines between the CW and phone subbands). The concept became known as “regulation by bandwidth.”

 Before drafting its proposal, the ARRL wisely set out on a program of explaining the concept to anyone willing to listen and soliciting input from its members and the ham community at large. It stretched over three years. Finally, in late 2005, the League submitted a “regulation by bandwidth” petition to the FCC. Criticism was instantaneous and intense, and not always rooted in fact. Various subgroups within the hobby felt the ARRL was trying to promote one mode or activity at the expense of others (particularly theirs), and that this would be the end of amateur radio as we know it. CQ filed comments generally supporting the concept of regulation by bandwidth (we still do), but objecting to some of the specifics within the ARRL proposal. Others expressed their own views.

 In early 2007, realizing that the tide of amateur opinion was not yet attuned to the need to make changes, ARRL officials met quietly with FCC officials and submitted revisions that essentially gutted the proposal, then a couple of months later, withdrew the petition altogether. At the time, the League said it still felt that a shift to regulation by bandwidth was necessary and that it would revisit the issue in the future. It appears to be revisiting it now, and appears to be continuing the pattern started earlier this year of doing so very quietly and with very little explanation.

 The vehicle this time is Region II of the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU), which, on paper, is the international organization representing all national amateur radio societies before the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and other international agencies. The ARRL, however, has always served as the IARU’s international secretariat; former ARRL officers have always served as IARU President (currently, it’s former ARRL President Larry Price, W4RA), and particularly here in Region II (North and South America), the ARRL has always had a tremendous amount of influence over IARU policy.

 In mid-October, IARU Region II quietly announced that it had adopted a new HF band plan, “as the way to better organize the use of our bands efficiently.” The brief introduction urged member societies “in coordination with the authorities, (to) incorporate it in their regulations an promote it widely with their radio amateur communities.”

 The new band plan takes effect January 1, 2008, and guess what? It’s broken down by bandwidths! Not only that, but it appears to do nearly everything that opponents of the original ARRL plan feared that it would do. It limits AM operation to two 25-kHz segments in the 75-meter band and frequencies above 29 MHz, does not provide at all for other wider-than-SSB voice modes such as independent sideband (ISB) or enhanced single sideband (ESSB), and establishes segments for automatically controlled wide-bandwidth (2700 Hz) digital stations on all HF bands except 160 and 30 meters. In several cases, these “robot” station segments are right at the bottom of the U.S. phone bands, where the best DX can often be found. Currently, data transmission is not permitted in most U.S. HF phone bands.

 Now there are several important things to note:

 1) This band plan is voluntary and is superseded by regulations in specific countries. For example, it will not change the FCC rules that limit automatically controlled digital stations to nine very small band segments. However, growth of activity on those frequencies in other countries will no doubt lead to pressure on the FCC to bring US subbands into compliance.

 2) There is currently no bandwidth limitation on automatic digital stations operating within those band segments, and current FCC rules permit semi-automatic digital stations anywhere that RTTY is allowed (generally the CW subbands), but subject to a 500-Hz bandwidth limit outside the specific segments.

 3) The band plan states that IARU member societies are urged to limit the number of unattended stations on the air, and that they all should be semi-automatic, that is, coming on the air only in response to a query from a station under operator control. But in specifically creating segments for them on virtually all HF ham bands, the plan appears to encourage rather than discourage this type of operation.

 4) The ARRL’s original petition to the FCC called for the bandwidth on the current phone bands to be 3.5 kHz; its revised plan dropped that (without explanation) to 3 kHz; and now the maximum bandwidth for SSB in the IARU band plan is 2.7 kHz. It’s the incredible shrinking sideband signal...

 5) As in the past, we at CQ agree philosophically with the need for regulation by bandwidth, and we support strong band planning. We even urged the FCC in our comments on this original proceeding to put band planning on a par with repeater coordination, keeping it voluntary but giving precedence to those complying with it in the event of interference. But decisions of this magnitude should not be made in private, without public discussion and debate.

 6) There are many excellent features to this band plan, including the establishment of “centres of activity” on each band for slow-speed Morse code, QRP (low-power), slow-scan TV, digital voice and emergency communications, along with “preferred” contesting areas.

 It is unfortunate that all of these excellent components will doubtless be overshadowed by the ARRL’s apparent insistence on implementing regulation by bandwidth— including significant areas for unattended wideband digital stations—even though it is obvious that its members and other U.S. amateurs are not ready for it. It is equally unfortunate that there was no opportunity for the general ham public to discuss or debate any of this before the new plan was adopted. The nameplate on the door may say IARU, but the door itself is in Newington, and change comes very slowly in Newington. The secret society is alive and well.

 On a more pleasant note, happy holidays and happy new year to all!

                        73, Rich W2VU
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #405 on: November 23, 2007, 09:22:42 PM »

Quote
The ARRL’s original petition to the FCC called for the bandwidth on the current phone bands to be 3.5 kHz; its revised plan dropped that (without explanation) to 3 kHz; and now the maximum bandwidth for SSB in the IARU band plan is 2.7 kHz. It’s the incredible shrinking sideband signal...
   Grin Grin

Quote
As in the past, we at CQ agree philosophically with the need for regulation by bandwidth, and we support strong band planning. We even urged the FCC in our comments on this original proceeding to put band planning on a par with repeater coordination, keeping it voluntary but giving precedence to those complying with it in the event of interference. But decisions of this magnitude should not be made in private, without public discussion and debate.

When it was first being seriously discussed whether or not we needed government imposed subbands at all in the US; that we might be better off as in Canada and most of the rest of the world to rely on voluntary band plans, the recent bandwidth nonsense had not yet raised its ugly head.  It seemed perfectly reasonable to establish voluntary band plans that would be more flexible than FCC regulations, allowing the FCC to cite stations that caused harmful interference while operating in non-compliance with the recommendations of the band plans, for not following "good amateur practice".

In fact, the ARRL had formally petitioned the FCC to adopt that option of enforcement, and the petition was assigned RM- number 9259 on 03 April 1998.  The FCC dismissed the proposal in an order released on 29 November 1999.

With the current situation we have just witnessed with ARRL and the new IARU band plan, maybe for the foreseeable future we would be better off with legal subbands after all, rather than relying on "voluntary" band plans, if these plans are going to be conceived in secrecy without first forming a consensus within the amateur community, and if they are to include technical standards like bandwith in addition to mere agreement on where different modes would operate within bands unencumbered by government imposed segmentation.  This is particularly true now following the phone band expansion that has allowed the FCC subbands to represent more realistically the interests of the amateur community at large.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #406 on: November 23, 2007, 10:25:41 PM »

Just to follow-up on the anonymous insulting email I received in reply to a message sent to ARRL officers... the header doesn't have any useful info.  It was sent from one of the online email services which do not tell you much if anything about the sender.

My theory is that it was forwarded to someone else by one of the recipients at ARRL, and that bozo sent the nasty message to me.  At least that's my optimistic idea of what happened.  If it was one of the ARRL officials, that would be especially sad.

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #407 on: November 24, 2007, 01:09:57 AM »

I would forward it to ALL of the original recipients of your initial email. Might as well expose the creep.
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #408 on: November 24, 2007, 05:18:01 AM »

Good Day Everyone,

 After some more Careful thought about all of this, my obvious anguish in my previous post..as expected somewhat shocked, I just remembered something, it was two or three years ago, some of the members of WACOM, our local club here in Washington Pa. earned some award for one of these Pa qso DX things i don't take any part in that sort of operations, but a director was there at the ham fest to present this award, i think it's on the web site somewhere or it used to be, anyhow, i approached this fella an quiered him about some questions i had about Digital technique, linking and Satelite Ops up and coming Launches etc. But he made a statement of their strong interest in the Digital internet linkng and how important it was to them to get these band plans in order, i just remembered this conversation.

 It comes to my mind, what better preface, considering their last failed attempt at railroading....than to use this "Compliance Agreement" in the hand shaking process to guide the FCC in lue of the HF internet and whatever digital interests they have, as always causing shock and awe within hamdom, and when it's all said and done, there won't be to much change although the worry here is Bandwidth, Limited AM placement frequency usage, which is normal, and as always remind them Strongly, I can't express that enough.... of a place for AM.........that is two sidebands with carrier...that in the end they will Gain what they originally set out to do....so many years ago, there's always a backdoor that amazes me.....

 Interesting, it's amazing how the lights come on when playing Catch up.

Gary and the team i see your collecting for support, FB and a Gud idea...these things cost dearly for upkeep. I'll have Diana set out a check for the board in the morning mail.

 As Always thanks for the use of the forum.

73 jack KA3ZLR.
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #409 on: November 24, 2007, 09:24:42 AM »

Just to follow-up on the anonymous insulting email I received in reply to a message sent to ARRL officers... the header doesn't have any useful info.  It was sent from one of the online email services which do not tell you much if anything about the sender.

My theory is that it was forwarded to someone else by one of the recipients at ARRL, and that bozo sent the nasty message to me.  At least that's my optimistic idea of what happened.  If it was one of the ARRL officials, that would be especially sad.

Steve WD8DAS



Steve, unless it was sent thru Gmail, fastmail.fm, or hushmail.com it still has IP info that can identify the sender.  Why not post the whole header here (or PM them to me) and we'll see what we can do.
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #410 on: November 24, 2007, 02:54:55 PM »


Before I left town on Wednesday I decided to let the insulting email drop and I trashed it.

I'm quite experienced in such things, but I couldn't discern anything from the headers as it was sent from one of the free web-based email systems. And I realized there's always a possibility it was a forward of a forward of a forward, and the original recipients at ARRL probably wouldn't even know or have any relationship to the bozo who sent it.

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #411 on: November 24, 2007, 03:45:19 PM »

I never discard things like that.  I move them to a special folder I created just for that sort of item, since it may be useful for later reference.  In the years that I have owned this computer, I have used but a fraction of its hard drive space, so I don't have any problem archiving the information.  Sometimes what appear to be unrelated pieces of a puzzle suddenly fall together with a perfect fit.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #412 on: November 24, 2007, 04:15:42 PM »

BTW,

There's an e-ham thread on the IARU Band Plan.  I put my (more than) 2 cents worth in the thread.  Some think the band plan is dirty and underhanded. Others are pooh poohing it, saying comments against it are based upon rumor & innuendo.  Here's the thread if you're interested:

http://www.eham.net/articles/18030

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #413 on: November 24, 2007, 04:29:59 PM »

Good Afternoon,

 Read the Eham responses, I especially like W7AIT response, LOL, Grab your pitch forks...
Logged
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2544

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #414 on: November 24, 2007, 07:39:40 PM »

"Telegram for Paul Rinaldo.."


* Frankenstein.jpg (66.32 KB, 594x454 - viewed 491 times.)
Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #415 on: November 24, 2007, 08:21:19 PM »

I just finished listening to the a recording made by and posted on the AM reflector by Bry W5AMI, of David/WD5BZO during the "old nuts & bolts" net. Suffice to say, David seems to have gotten quite a bit of sunshine pumped up his skirt about this IARU Reg 2 Band plan. Here is the URL for the recording: http://w5ami.net/IARU_wd5bzo.mp3
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #416 on: November 24, 2007, 09:18:43 PM »

I challenge several points made by WD5BZO in the MP3 recording of a net transmission...

>The ARRL rep says the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US hams -

Why not?  The USA is in Region 2.  Radio signals don't stop at national borders - that's why a *regional* plan would be developed in the first place.  And can't we participate in the changing of the bandplan for our region if it includes other countries?  Hams in other countries aren't to be allowed to run all the modes we do in the United States?  Seems kooky to me...

>To get a voice that will be heard by the League, become a member -

As far as I've been able to determine, no effort was made to get any input from anyone, members or non-members, before the ARRL and IARU developed and voted upon the bandplan changes.  And after we discovered it had happened, member feedback on this topic has been thoroughly rejected, with significant attitude on the part of ARRL officials and Directors.   I am a long-time member of the ARRL, and my respectful and gently-expressed opinions on the bandplan have been ignored, insulted, attacked, scorned, belittled, and pooh-poohed.  It would appear that *I* do not have even a tiny voice in this matter - can any other League members report better results?

> The ARRL VP is not willing to get in the middle of a debate

Why the heck not?  Wouldn't that be a way to discuss it with members and other amateurs?  Sounds like he does not feel he has any need to speak with us about it after all.

>WA3VJB has put out a lot of misinformation

Everything I've seen Paul write on this subject has matched my *personal* experience on this issue.   I am not relying just upon discussions on mailing lists and web-forums - I've based my views on the responses I have received directly from ARRL and IARU officials.  Can you specify the "mis-information" that is claimed?   I'm not seeing it...

Steve WD8DAS

sbjohnston@aol.com






Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #417 on: November 24, 2007, 09:42:49 PM »

Pete said:
Quote
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!!!!!!!!

Since the FCC shot them down 9 years ago on the same issue, what do you think has changed to make the FCC more receptive to applying the voluntary Region 2 band plan as the official FCC "amateur radio rules of the road" today?

"gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization" In the U. S., there is only one Agency(FCC) that administers, regulates, and polices all amateur radio rules and regulations. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
KA8WTK
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 872



« Reply #418 on: November 24, 2007, 10:54:32 PM »

Quote from: wd8das link=topic=12262.msg94009#msg94009 date=1195957123
>To get a voice that will be heard by the League, become a member -
[/quote


If this were a League matter, I would agree. But, the ARRL is the Member Society for the US that is to represent ALL US Hams at the IARU, not just League members.

The ARRL itself states on it's web page, in the area "About the ARRL", that it represents US Hams. It does not state that the ARRL is too represent only dues paying members. A dues paying member has other, spelled out, benefits.

As regards the IARU, the ARRL is misrepresenting itself to the International Community as the voice for US operators if at "home" it claims to be responsive only to members.

Logged

Bill KA8WTK
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #419 on: November 25, 2007, 12:05:06 AM »

Pete said:
Quote
Since the FCC shot them down 9 years ago on the same issue, what do you think has changed to make the FCC more receptive to applying the voluntary Region 2 band plan as the official FCC "amateur radio rules of the road" today?

"gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization" In the U. S., there is only one Agency(FCC) that administers, regulates, and polices all amateur radio rules and regulations. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon.

Then you tell me Pete, why do they continue to solicit the FCC into making the IARU Reg. 2 band plan the definitive for Good Amateur Practice?? Huh
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #420 on: November 25, 2007, 04:16:00 AM »

Pete said:
Quote
Since the FCC shot them down 9 years ago on the same issue, what do you think has changed to make the FCC more receptive to applying the voluntary Region 2 band plan as the official FCC "amateur radio rules of the road" today?

"gaining a foot-hold to be a regulatory organization" In the U. S., there is only one Agency(FCC) that administers, regulates, and polices all amateur radio rules and regulations. I don't see them giving that up anytime soon.

Then you tell me Pete, why do they continue to solicit the FCC into making the IARU Reg. 2 band plan the definitive for Good Amateur Practice?? Huh

Can you explain in more detail by what you mean? A reference to the current official ARRL solicitation to the FCC would also be helpful.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #421 on: November 25, 2007, 05:35:21 AM »

Good Day Everyone,

 I wouldn't play that card, if I may, I believe the gentleman on the recording expleted to stay awake at the wheel. FBOM. That deduces "Awareness" The he said she said is unproductive at this point in time i believe this "Compliance Agreement" has an effective date up and coming.

 Any organization that states publically, that it represents etc etc, in a public format in the public eye, is open to question at any time, and would have to prove otherwise any and all quieries to be false or unproductive for the common good.

 I'm a libritarian, we still have the right in the states to public forum, any person has the right to Question Representation, from any enitity, in good character of course.

 The he said she said, finger pointing, useless, proof in action OM's .

 Show Me......

jack KA3ZLR.
Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #422 on: November 25, 2007, 08:05:55 AM »

Pete said:
Quote
Can you explain in more detail by what you mean? A reference to the current official ARRL solicitation to the FCC would also be helpful.

Well, lets go with this one for starters: http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1999/da992654.doc

and this directly from the top of the page of 'the band plan': The IARU Region 2 has established this band plan as the way to better organize the use of our
bands efficiently. To the extent possible, this band plan is harmonized this with those of the other regions. 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.


Is it ironic that the IARU reg 2 logo is vaguely similar to another logo???


http://www.iaru-r2.org/
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #423 on: November 25, 2007, 10:29:46 AM »

So let's see here, the U.S. has 80 - 85 % of the licensed hams in Region 2, but the new Region 2 band plan is to be ignored by the U.S. Amateurs.

Maybe the U.S., Canada and perhaps Mexico should form IARU Region 4 then?  For proper representation.  What do you think?
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #424 on: November 25, 2007, 10:34:56 AM »

Tom said:
Quote
Maybe the U.S., Canada and perhaps Mexico should form IARU Region 4 then?  For proper representation.  What do you think?

And that small percentage that continues to pledge allegiance to the (be)League(d) can remain in Region 2 as a consolation Wink
Logged

Mike(y)/W3SLK
Invisible airwaves crackle with life, bright antenna bristle with the energy. Emotional feedback, on timeless wavelength, bearing a gift beyond lights, almost free.... Spirit of Radio/Rush
Pages: 1 ... 16 [17] 18 ... 29   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 19 queries.