The AM Forum
July 21, 2024, 03:43:01 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 ... 17 [18] 19 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.  (Read 440207 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #425 on: November 25, 2007, 10:42:05 AM »

Ron Paul for CEO!
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #426 on: November 25, 2007, 10:47:04 AM »

I'm all for Independence...Right On...(raises right fist in the air)....
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #427 on: November 25, 2007, 10:55:38 AM »

"Telegram for Paul Rinaldo.."


Worth a try !!!
You bring the torch, I have a match.

But say, I have discovered a couple of errors that I have personally made in this thing.
 
One is that I thought Larry Price has a responsibility to address concerns and complaints about the people he manages as part of his job at the IARU. He does not. He told me it is up to his judgment whether to take such action.

Next mistake was including, early on, the U.S. delegates in a series of emails and phone calls where several of us were actually attaining revisions to the IARU plan taking effect in January. These steps were taken by the cheerful and receptive non-U.S. delegates in Region 2.

Whoops ! This kind of behavior must have alerted Sumner, Rinaldo et. al. that maybe they were being challenged, and they now insist that any queries from U.S. licensees be deferred to them, where non-responsiveness can be the rule.

Two outstanding questions:
1. Harrison, in email traffic posted in this thread,  said the ARRL Board of Directors develops policy for and ahead of these IARU conferences. Since Rinaldo is the only known player at the table, what was he given as an agenda to represent all U.S. licensees?

2. Harrison also has said, in the same communications, that these plans are typically for countries that have no regulatory or voluntary band plan. What Region 2 country indicated such a need for the plan taking effect in January?

So there ya go. See if you can get answers.



Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #428 on: November 25, 2007, 11:00:08 AM »

Paul said:
Quote
But say, I have discovered a couple of errors that I have personally made in this thing.

Shame on you Paul for spreading mis-information! 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
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #429 on: November 25, 2007, 11:18:41 AM »

I remember Eisenhower a long time ago commented something about compartmentalization,..Thing...places unattainable...activities unseen by the American civilians...etc...

boy he don't know how right he was...awesum.


jack KA3ZLR.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #430 on: November 25, 2007, 03:09:50 PM »


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.

The problem here is that you're 8 years behind the times.
From your link above the FCC's ruling:
"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".


And the FCC Decision:
1.1  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. 

   1.2  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."   


So, as I said earlier: The U. S. FCC rules and regulations take precedence over any voluntary band plans. They already said so in a formal report, 8 years ago.

And, you and the IARU said from above: "It is suggested..."
There is nothing legal and binding in the word "suggested". As you can see from the FCC final declaration on voluntary band plans under the umbrella of "good operating practices", we already have our current rules in place.

Quote
Is it ironic that the IARU reg 2 logo is vaguely similar to another logo???
http://www.iaru-r2.org/

You might want to read the IARU history and probably thank Hiram Percy Maxim for helping iin the formulation of the organization.
http://www.iaru.org/cal-180.html
Here's the 75 year anniversary graphic:

Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #431 on: November 25, 2007, 04:31:42 PM »

Well Pete, I aint gonna convince you and you aint gonna convince me. I personally have a problem with the organization you hold is such high esteem. I and there are allot of others on this board that will agree with me that the ARRgghhL is doing their damnest to destroy amateur radio as we know it. I've been (be)League(d) free now for ten years and if memory serves me, their membership has not been rising. They are low down and dirty underhanded. And I won't support them anymore!
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
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #432 on: November 25, 2007, 05:00:39 PM »

The ARRL folks say the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US hams.  But 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. 

AM operation is not confined to the USA or even to the USA and Canada.  I have worked numerous AM stations in the Caribbean, and have heard Cuban AM signals on 160 many times, even though they have always been too weak for me to successfully work.  If AM is to remain a mainstream  facet of amateur radio, we don't want it to become a US-only activity for several reasons. There is quite a bit of interest in AM in Europe and Australia at present, so why not Central and South America?

The more world-wide interest there is in the mode, the more the likelihood that the manufacturers will continue to include AM capability on the store-bought transceivers that are sold worldwide.  Worldwide AM capability means more international interest in the mode.  More than just a few present-day AM'ers got their interest sparked when they tried out a transceiver on AM, and some of these hams have managed to generate excellent signals on the air using transceivers, equipped with high quality microphones and maybe some type of audio processing,  working into linears.  Others have actually opened the covers of their transceivers and made MODIFICATIONS (gasp!) to improve the quality of their AM signals.  Still others have since acquired or built plate modulated tube type rigs or gone the solid state class-E  route.

If AM is limited to a  relatively small group of US hams while the rest of the world goes the way of regulation-by-bandwidth and exclusion of AM, and if AM capability disappears from the popular radios sold worldwide, it will just be a matter of time until we see international pressure to follow suit in the USA.

This is just one of the reasons why the proposition that the IARU bandplan is not meant for US hams, that it will have no effect on what we are allowed do under Part 97, and that it is strictly voluntary and therefore US hams are under no obligation to conform to its recommendations,  is a bogus argument.
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
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #433 on: November 25, 2007, 06:00:58 PM »

The ARRL folks say the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US hams.  But 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. 

AM operation is not confined to the USA or even to the USA and Canada.  I have worked numerous AM stations in the Caribbean, and have heard Cuban AM signals on 160 many times, even though they have always been too weak for me to successfully work.  If AM is to remain a mainstream  facet of amateur radio, we don't want it to become a US-only activity for several reasons. There is quite a bit of interest in AM in Europe and Australia at present, so why not Central and South America?


The Region 1 band plan, from which the revised Region 2 band plan was based upon, has been in affect since January 2006. The maximum bandwidth specified in the Region 1 band plan from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz is 2700 Hz.
REGION 1 Band Plan

Are countries in Europe complying with the Region 1 plan? For the Region 3 band plan (Australia is part of that), the Phone operation includes SSTV, FAX and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz. What about Australia?
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #434 on: November 25, 2007, 07:06:17 PM »

Ok, it's all just about standardizing voluntary compliance..Right, back into my hole I go...

My support for the members here is as always,.. my support for the system will be on it's way soon, and I hope nobody has to eat crow over this.

What a Debate...Wow...unbelievable...

73 Om's KA3ZLR SK.
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #435 on: November 25, 2007, 07:21:04 PM »

Pete, you're (perhaps purposely?) missing the forest for the trees.  I think the suspicion is that once all of these bandplans line up, the goal of the ARRL is perhaps to lobby the ITU to institutionalize them at the next ITU WRC.  Once so accepted by the US they would have the effect of being a treaty, upon which they would need to be ratified (there are 4 different ways treaties may become ratified in the US).  Once adopted they would be incorporated into the Feces regs (NOT as law, as some have erroneously stated).

So there you go.  The ARRL failed in 98, failed a couple of years ago, and (on the face of it) appears to be doing an end-run around the FCC to the ITU.

The interesting thing about that is I'm pretty sure the Department of State is receptive to comments from parties whom these treaties might affect  Wink
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #436 on: November 25, 2007, 08:39:52 PM »

Pete, you're (perhaps purposely?) missing the forest for the trees.

I don't think I'm missing anything relative to this issue. My crystal water globe ball won't be back till tomorrow. Then you can peer into it and see what the future holds.

Quote
I think the suspicion is that once all of these bandplans line up, the goal of the ARRL is perhaps to lobby the ITU to institutionalize them at the next ITU WRC.  Once so accepted by the US they would have the effect of being a treaty, upon which they would need to be ratified (there are 4 different ways treaties may become ratified in the US).  Once adopted they would be incorporated into the Feces regs (NOT as law, as some have erroneously stated).

So there you go.  The ARRL failed in 98, failed a couple of years ago, and (on the face of it) appears to be doing an end-run around the FCC to the ITU.

The interesting thing about that is I'm pretty sure the Department of State is receptive to comments from parties whom these treaties might affect  Wink

Well, after 23 pages of replies, discussions, whining, evil lord syndrome finger pointing, etc. you seem to be the only one to express a future ARRL/ITU conspiracy.

Excerpt from the summation of recently ended ITU meeting:
"The IARU had hoped that if a 5MHz allocation could not be achieved at WRC-07, an appropriate agenda item could be included for WRC-11. The 2007 conference, however, had little interest in taking up HF issues at the next conference, tentatively set for 2011, having little to show for a great deal of effort expended on HF in preparing for WRC-07. The only HF issues on the provisional WRC-11 agenda have to do with oceanographic radar applications and the implementation of new digital technologies for the maritime mobile service."

I seriously doubt the ITU wants to get involved with converting voluntary IARU Regional band plans into a specific country's "amateur radio rules of the road" or anything else you might want to call it. But, that was a good stretch.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #437 on: November 26, 2007, 07:38:39 AM »

So, what your saying (by using the phrase, I seriously doubt) is that either you know more than the rest here (if so, please share) or your unfounded opinion carries more weight than others here (since you chose to use descriptive terms like whining, evil lord syndrome and finger pointing). Neither is a legitimate platform for your case.
Logged
W3SLK
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2677

Just another member member.


« Reply #438 on: November 26, 2007, 08:57:07 AM »

Pete said:
Quote
The Region 1 band plan, from which the revised Region 2 band plan was based upon, has been in affect since January 2006. The maximum bandwidth specified in the Region 1 band plan from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz is 2700 Hz.

Which begs the question "Just because its good enough for Region 1 means its good enough for Region 2?"
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 #439 on: November 26, 2007, 09:05:57 AM »

Pete, do you seriously think that there won't be any change in the issues to be discussed at WRC-11 in the next four years?

The IARU does participate in ITU conferences; indeed, one of its missions is to "represent the interests of all amateurs worldwide".  Here is how the IARU participates in ITU treaty conferences (copied in part from the IARU's website http://www.iaru.org/ac-respol.html

Quote
While only Member States can vote at treaty conferences, Sector Members such as the IARU can influence the ITU’s deliberative process. Resolution 82 (Minneapolis, 1998) invited each Sector to develop its own procedures for approving questions and recommendations using an alternative approval process and to develop its own guidelines. Permitting Sector Members to participate in the approval process is considered necessary to be more responsive to changes in the telecommunications marketplace.

The amateur services are dependent upon the positions toward them of the Member States of the ITU. Close decisions can be modified by the attitudes of the Sector Members, as they operate telecommunications networks having economic impact on the countries in which they operate.

Thus, the IARU needs to develop and maintain the support of both ITU Member States and of other Sector Members.

//snip//

3.1       Who Does an IARU Participant Represent?

There is no question that an IARU participant must represent the interests of all radio amateurs worldwide. He or she is not there to advocate national or regional positions. While representatives may have been selected for their specialized knowledge in a particular facet of Amateur Radio, they should not view themselves as advocating one interest at the detriment of another.

Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #440 on: November 26, 2007, 11:04:03 AM »

Are countries in Europe complying with the Region 1 plan?

As far as AM goes, yes.  The Region 1 band plan carries the following "preferred mode and usage note":

All modes - CW, SSB and those modes listed as Centres of Activity, plus AM (Considerationshould be given to adjacent channel users).

This appears to grant an exception to the 2700Hz bandwidth provision, since that is too narrow for DSB AM to operate, and the statement regarding "consideration of adjacent channel users" implies that AM signals would be expected to occupy more than the standard 2700 Hz bandwidth.

Not that it's desirable for AM to be reduced to a footnote that grants non-compliance in the form of a special case exception, but the Region 2 plan doesn't even contain that.  Instead, AM is relegated to 40m, plus a few narrow "windows" in 75m, 20m and 10m, but no AM operation at all is recommended on 160m, 15m, 17m or 12m.
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
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #441 on: November 26, 2007, 02:54:44 PM »

Are countries in Europe complying with the Region 1 plan?

As far as AM goes, yes.  The Region 1 band plan carries the following "preferred mode and usage note":

All modes - CW, SSB and those modes listed as Centres of Activity, plus AM (Considerationshould be given to adjacent channel users).

This appears to grant an exception to the 2700Hz bandwidth provision, since that is too narrow for DSB AM to operate, and the statement regarding "consideration of adjacent channel users" implies that AM signals would be expected to occupy more than the standard 2700 Hz bandwidth.

Not that it's desirable for AM to be reduced to a footnote that grants non-compliance in the form of a special case exception, but the Region 2 plan doesn't even contain that.  Instead, AM is relegated to 40m, plus a few narrow "windows" in 75m, 20m and 10m, but no AM operation at all is recommended on 160m, 15m, 17m or 12m.


Sorry Don, I don't agree that their words implies that there is an "AM exception" between 135.7 KHz and 29.2 MHz. Regardless of what the amateurs are actually doing in those countries, the voluntary Region 1 band plan clearly spells out the recommended maximum bandwidth for "All Modes" from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz to be 2700 Hz. At 29.2 to 29.7 MHz, the chart clearly spells out  "All Modes" maximum recommended bandwidth to be 6000 Hz.

Since a number of countries probably have an equivalent/similar FCC-type regulatory authority which probably takes precedence over a voluntary plan, their amateur radio operators probably ignore the voluntary Region 1 band plan.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #442 on: November 26, 2007, 03:12:37 PM »

Pete, do you seriously think that there won't be any change in the issues to be discussed at WRC-11 in the next four years?

Never said that; what I said was: "I seriously doubt the ITU wants to get involved with converting voluntary IARU Regional band plans into a specific country's "amateur radio rules of the road" or anything else you might want to call it."
I'm sure if over the next four years some high visibility, pressing telecommunication-type country issue came up that required multiple country involvement, discussion, etc., they probably would find a way to add it to their agenda.

And, on the flip side, there's also no stopping anyone from taking a pen in hand and writing a request for proposed rulemaking to the FCC either.

Quote
The IARU does participate in ITU conferences; indeed, one of its missions is to "represent the interests of all amateurs worldwide".  Here is how the IARU participates in ITU treaty conferences (copied in part from the IARU's website http://www.iaru.org/ac-respol.html

Yep, I'm aware of their missions.


Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #443 on: November 26, 2007, 03:17:09 PM »

So, what your saying (by using the phrase, I seriously doubt) is that either you know more than the rest here (if so, please share) or your unfounded opinion carries more weight than others here (since you chose to use descriptive terms like whining, evil lord syndrome and finger pointing). Neither is a legitimate platform for your case.

Thanks Steve, but I seriously doubt my platform will change. Haven't seen any convincing arguments in 23 pages of this thread.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #444 on: November 26, 2007, 03:29:03 PM »

Nor have you presented any. So what's your point?


So, what your saying (by using the phrase, I seriously doubt) is that either you know more than the rest here (if so, please share) or your unfounded opinion carries more weight than others here (since you chose to use descriptive terms like whining, evil lord syndrome and finger pointing). Neither is a legitimate platform for your case.

Thanks Steve, but I seriously doubt my platform will change. Haven't seen any convincing arguments in 23 pages of this thread.
Logged
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #445 on: November 26, 2007, 10:40:02 PM »

OK Guys,

It looks like I stirred up a little bit of a Hornets Nest, when I posted on the e-Ham IARU band plan thread the e-mail I sent out.  Bear with me, this is kind of long. Al Feder, W1UX sent me a private e-mail about my post. Then he forwarded it to Dave Sumner, K1ZZ (who actually was listed as one of the recipeints in my original e-mail).  I was CCed on the e-mail. Here's Al's e-mail to Dave:



Dear Mr. Sumner,

Ms. Rugowski has very eloquently stated the situation as per her email to you and E-ham posting below. 

Her points #1 - #4, as well as her subsequent posting as further clarification, really do lay out the situation. Her comments stand out as a reasonable request for clarification, devoid of emotional claptrap and “misunderstanding”.

I have operated all modes for years, and currently enjoy the technical challenges of AM operation, including building and repairing old and modern gear to whatever extent I am capable. A 2.7 khz limitation on the 160 meter band, for example, would be destructive if not irrelevant, harmful and contrary to the most active users of that band (aside from the occasional flurry of contesters)

It seems the League is only beginning to realize that the AM Community constitutes one of the few technically savvy core groups within amateur radio today. Declining standards have brought amateur radio to a pretty low state; new “appliance operators” do constitute a “market” but there is little or no knowledge there of how radios work.  And AM is definitely not a “dinosaur” as it serves, at the very least, as a training ground for the broadcast industry, as well as any RF related or audio related engineering field.

Mr. Sumner, I have been a licensed amateur since 1953. I have supported the ARRL **continuously** for that length of time. I have viewed with increasing alarm the League’s frequent efforts to push “band plans” of one kind or another, when so few other developed countries have such plans. Look at Canada: they assume a licensed amateur will use his discretion and operate properly anywhere within an assigned band. But the ARRL wishes to chop things up more and more, with increasing limits. Towards what end? Does ARRL think so little of the US amateur population that it must increasingly suffocate us with more and more restrictive rule suggestions?

We all know that a bureaucracy eventually grows merely to feed itself. Is this what is happening with ARRL? I think it is; most “membership organizations”  poll their membership before attempting to implement any kind of substantial policy: I saw this more constructive approach when I was a member of IEEE for years; as well as the PTG (Registered Piano Technicians’ Guild), and currently the Audio Engineering Society. With ARRL, we have to read the fine print and the minutes to see what really goes on.  We have about as much input and ability to affect policy decisions as “members” do in the National Geographic Society! 

I would refer you to Moore’s Laws of Bureaucracy, which pretty much describe things, although I don’t expect you may agree J

http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/Lawsburo.htm

As the Executive Director for some years of a nonprofit foundation* devoted to making contributions to legitimate public service 501 c(3) operations, I have been watching ARRL closely for some time and unfortunately cannot, especially with these new developments, feel confident in adding ARRL to our list of beneficiaries at this time.

I do welcome further clarification should you care to do so, but in order for your reply to be effective, I would suggest a detailed response to the various logical points made in Ms. Rugowski’s e-mail quoted below.

Many thanks,
Yves A. (Al) Feder
W1UX
Killingworth, CT


Dave responded to AL, CCing me in the process.  Heres' what he sent:

Al,
 
Working from the bottom up, the ARRL's membership currently stands at more than 152,000, more than 90% of whom are FCC amateur licensees. I have no idea where the 66,000 figure comes from but it is off by more than 100%.
 
With regard to point #4, if we were talking about a regulatory limit it would be necessary bandwidth, not occupied bandwidth, that should be specified. (In the case of the Region 2 band plan, since it's not a regulatory limit -- which also moots most of points #1-3 -- it doesn't matter.) We were very careful to avoid this pitfall in RM-11306; the proposed definition of bandwidth was necessary bandwidth, not occupied bandwidth. For analog modes, necessary bandwidth is defined as 2700 Hz for voice SSB and 6000 Hz for voice DSB. That's an ITU Recommendation and did not originate with the ARRL.
 
With regard to point #3, in Canada the maximum bandwidth allowed is in fact 6 kHz. See http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/vwapj/rbr4e.pdf/$FILE/rbr4e.pdf, Schedule I, and the definition of "bandwidth" which (unfortunately for our Canadian colleagues) parallels that of occupied bandwidth rather than necessary bandwidth. This is not the case in the US, and I am confident that the ARRL Board would oppose any move to follow Canada in that regard since the Board has always supported AM.
 
By the way, Ellen seems to have overlooked the fact that the Region 2 plan provides for AM at 3875-3900 kHz.
 
The fact that the new  Region 2 band plan did not originate with the ARRL will be clear if you look at the Region 1 plan that was adopted in 2005. See http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm and compare it with the new Region 2 plan.
 
The committee that discussed the band plan in Brasilia in September didn't spend much time on 160 meters -- the use of AM in the upper part of the band is hardly a matter of international concern since most countries don't even have that part of the band allocated to them. The ARRL did spend a lot of time on the 160-meter band plan back in 2001 and solicited membership input in the way you suggest. The committee report is at http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0107/160-meter.html; note in particular the discussion of AM. The resulting Board action was taken at the July 2001 Board meeting:
 
57. Mr. Roderick, as Chairman, presented the report and recommendations of the 160 Meters Band Plan Ad Hoc Committee. A recommended band plan was created based upon the heavy input of Amateurs responding to the Committee's request. Mr. Haynie returned to the Chair at 11:40 AM. On motion of Mr. Roderick, seconded by Mr. Frenaye, it was VOTED that the following 160 Meters band plan revisions developed by the 160 meters band plan committee after input from hundreds of 160 meters band users be adopted:

Recommended ARRL 160 Meters Band Plan (1.8 -- 2.0 MHz)

1.800 -- 1.810
 Digital modes
 
1.810
 CW QRP
 
1.800 -- 2.000
 CW
 
1.843 -- 2.000
 SSB SSTV and other wideband modes
 
1.910
 SSB QRP
 
1.995 -- 2.000
 Experimental
 
1.999 -- 2.000
 Beacons
 


That is the ARRL band plan for 160 meters and will remain so until the 15 voting Directors on the Board decide otherwise.

I hope this is responsive to your concerns.

73,

David Sumner, K1ZZ


Am I being BSed, or are Sumner & Co. all of a sudden changing their minds or coming clean, because of pressure from somebody who can hit them in the pocketbook?

As of now, I'm taking his response with a grain of salt.  Any input would be appreciated from you guys.

73,
Ellen - AF9J
Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #446 on: November 26, 2007, 11:34:16 PM »

Here are comments from the Great Lakes Division Director, Jim
Weaver K8JE, regarding the IARU band plan proposal.
 
- - - - - - - - -
 
+++ AM Privileges -- Under Attack? +++
 
Definitely not!
 
A few members contacted me with questions about the possible impact on
US hams of a bandplan adopted by Region 2 of the International Amateur
Radio Union -- IARU. The answer to the question is that the Region 2
bandplan has no impact on US hams.
 
For background, the IARU is the International organization of national
Amateur Radio societies from around the world. These societies include
the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC), the Radio Society of Great Britain
(RSGB) and the ARRL. Region 2 of the IARU covers the Western
hemisphere. IARU cannot issue legally-binding rules or regulations.
 
There are three regions in the IARU. Each of the regions has a
voluntary bandplan. The Region 1 and Region 3 bandplans preceded the
Region 2 plan. IARU Region 2 held a conference a few weeks ago.
Among other actions, it adopted its new recommended bandplan during
this conference.
 
It is critical to understand that this recommended bandplan has
absolutely no relevance to countries such as Canada and the US which
have federal agencies (e.g. the FCC) that define and regulate Amateur
Radio bands. In addition, IARU bandplans are merely recommendations to
amateurs in countries that do not have such government agencies. There
is no force of law behind the voluntary bandplans.
 
The concern of some amateurs seems to be that the FCC will adopt the
Region 2 bandplan; thereby reducing the US's frequency allocation for
AM. One writer from the GLD said the FCC has previously adopted a
number of practices recommended by the IARU. To this moment, he has
not responded to my request to identify just which IARU recommended
actions were picked up and adopted by the Commission. Similarly, a
writer from outside the GLD has accused IARU President Larry Price,
W4RA of a written attempt to manipulate International Treaty to reduce
AM privileges. To date, he too, has not responded to my request for a
reference to the source of his accusation.
 
Finally, CQ Magazine has jumped into the fray by accusing ARRL of using
the recent IARU Conference to further regulation by bandwidth. I enjoy
reading CQ; however, as much as I enjoy reading it I equally strongly
assure you that its editor has gotten caught-up in bad journalism. The
basis for the editorial appears merely to be ARRL's
publicly-acknowledged support of regulation by bandwidth and the fact
that the Region 2 bandplan specified bandwidths. This logic is similar
to claiming 1 plus 1 = 6.
 
The fact is that ARRL did not participate in developing this bandplan.
We had no representation on the bandplan committee. Could it be that
in reality, the plan was developed in its present form because the
delegates who drafted it believe this is the way it should be and that
there was no dastardly conspiracy after all? Or is it too hard to
believe in this day of ever-present conspiracy theories is it too much
to expect that some things are done in a fully responsible manner?
 
The bottom line to this small flurry of concern by some AM colleagues
is that the Region 2 bandplan represents nothing to worry about. The
IARU has no impact on US FCC regulations . . . the FCC has no apparent
intent to act against AM in the foreseeable future . . . the ARRL has
no thought of recommending the FCC take action against AM . . . and I
will vote against any effort to get ARRL to recommend action against
AM.
 
My recommendation to AM operators is to relax and enjoy your favorite
form of Amateur Radio . . . for a long time.
 
- - - - - - - - -
 
 
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #447 on: November 27, 2007, 03:00:02 AM »

OK Guys,

It looks like I stirred up a little bit of a Hornets Nest, when I posted on the e-Ham IARU band plan thread the e-mail I sent out.  Bear with me, this is kind of long. Al Feder, W1UX sent me a private e-mail about my post. Then he forwarded it to Dave Sumner, K1ZZ (who actually was listed as one of the recipeints in my original e-mail).  I was CCed on the e-mail. Here's Al's e-mail to Dave:

<cut>

Am I being BSed, or are Sumner & Co. all of a sudden changing their minds or coming clean, because of pressure from somebody who can hit them in the pocketbook?

As of now, I'm taking his response with a grain of salt.  Any input would be appreciated from you guys.

73,
Ellen - AF9J

I really don't think you stirred up any hornets nest with your e-ham post. It was one of the few that actually had sense to it. This is probably where you got the 66,000. I was going to respond to your eham post but forgot.
On November 10th, I said this: The ARRL Letter now distributes to more than 66,000 ARRL members each Friday.
On November 19th: I said this: The weekly ARRL Letter is e-mailed to over 66,000 recipients.
And the overall messages were quoted several times as participants responded to my posts.

Dave's point on the revised Region 2 band plan that it was adopted from the Region 1 band plan issued January 2006 was also stated here in this thread. The formed IARU B/C committee was chartered with the task of tweaking it for regional differences between Region 1 and Region 2.

Also, as Dave points out, the 160 M band plan is also a matter of record.
Excerpt from 160 M Ad Hoc Committee Report to BoD-July 2001 in regards to AM:
c.)AM Operation

The Committee received a large number of comments from the AM community and vintage equipment operators. The vast majority stated that they did not want any changes made regarding AM. There are established and recognized frequencies used on 160 for AM. For example, 1.945 MHz. has been used for almost 45 years. Also, 1.885 MHz and 1.925 MHz. are long established frequencies as well.

The Committee spent considerable time on this topic and considerable discussion was held directly with AM operators who sent messages to the Committee. Based upon this input, the Committee recommends no changes with respect to AM operation.

As a side note, during the review of AM operations, the Committee discussed whether to suggest that AM rag chewing be conducted above 1.900 MHz. While limiting rag chewing to frequencies above 1.900 MHz might be desirable, the majority of the Committee felt there should not be such a limit as it conflicted with the input received.

And in the Summary, Item 7:
AM operations continue to share the same band segment as SSB. No specific calling frequencies for AM operation should be identified.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #448 on: November 27, 2007, 05:20:26 AM »

OK so the ARRL people say the plan does not apply to U.S. licensees, and that " IARU bandplans are merely recommendations to amateurs in countries that do not have such government agencies." according to one Director who is trying to tamp down concerns.

But I can't seem to find out which countries have requested the Region 2 plan on that basis, and specifically, why the request, if there was one, had to include enumerated bandwidths.

Who came up with that idea?
I cannot find any mandate to provide a basis, and the idea of passing a regional band plan as a simple "do good" deed seems suspect given the stealthy nature of what went on in Brazil.

One theory from The Concerned is that there is a trifecta in the works: Region 1/bandwidths, now Region 2/bandwidths.  Once Region 3 gets on board, the International Telecommunications Union could be asked for a more formal recognition, possibly a "Recommendation" which could, in turn, become an ITU treaty among signatories.

Evidence includes the IARU's convenient re-alignment of its regions to match those of the ITU, and the recent disclosure that the specific bandwidths enumerated in the Region 2 plan descend from an ITU document.

Then of course, you've got your parallels to the U.S., where the League has failed to attain regulatory power it wanted for voluntary band plans, failed to muster adequate support for its bandwidth scheme, and saw a bandwidth-limiting petition fail at the FCC.

End run ? Who can answer except those who are pushing it.

We have not heard anything from a chief proponent, ARRL technology lobbyist Paul Rinaldo.  Maybe ask him, he won't answer me.

--Paul/VJB
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #449 on: November 27, 2007, 05:38:15 AM »

Good Morning Everyone,

 It's always best to Finish the Job, if your gona come "Clean" tell the whole story man.

 And while everybody's interest is peeked..Directors members etc of the league, let's get on with dealing with the on air Modal conflicts.

73 jack KA3ZLR.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 17 [18] 19 ... 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 0.076 seconds with 19 queries.