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

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Did the ARRL vote or otherwise argue against it?

Pete said:

We already know that the voluntary IARU band plan (or any band plan for that matter) have no legal authority over us.

In the same breath, Sumner said it wasn't for us. That being the case, who was it for? And why did the ARRgghhL present it on behalf of a country other than the US??

I have no idea where you got the idea the ARRL "presented it on behalf of a country other than the US"

The ARRL did not propose this plan.
In Sumner's response to AF9J and W1UX, (Reply 476), he said:
"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."

And further, the IARU said 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"


The B/C subcommittee (Rinaldo as secretary) had the charge to model the revised Region 2 band plan to the Region 1 band plan already in existence. The secretary generally is the person who gathers all the committee member discussion input and prepares the final document for presentation to the overall IARU. In some committee circles, the secretary of the committee also does the presentation to the overall organization. In this capacity, Rinaldo would have presented, not for the ARRL but for the sub-committee for which he is secretary.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Why would any Licensed Amateur voluntarily take part, design or speerhead a voluntary agreement the has such possible limiting capabilities in representing the United States, then state it is to be ignored as voluntary compliance only...there's a Questionable Duality in existence now

You said "take part" - ARRL is a member of IARU Region 2; why wouldn't they take part in IARU activities.
You said "design" - The revised voluntary Region 2 band plan design is rooted in the Region 1 band plan put into motion January 2006.
You said "spearhead a voluntary agreement" - I've seen no evidence that they spearheaded this agreement.

......why would you do that Pete..I wouldn't do that.. what would lead someone to do this...if the concern is to bring other countries into some compliance or offer a base line for their present and future business and or Amateur Service then it is to that countries business to do so...that's fine....., Our regulations are the mandate, should remain the mandate, and should have been stated as the mandate on "Our behalf" first and always IMO....such agreement is in place to be ignored and left in tact right...just walk away now it means nothing.

The IARU B/C committee was chartered with developing a voluntary revised Region 2 band plan patterned after the existing voluntary Region 1 band plan. In my opinion, discussing countries who already have government regulated amateur radio rules and regulations was not the issue in developing this voluntary band plan. There are a number of countries who do not have similar government type regulations. Several countries within Region 2 have already adopted what was presented in the Region 1 plan almost two years ago. After 1/1/08, all amateurs who visit these countries which do not have government mandated rules and regulations, for vacation, contests, or whatever, can now operate with a similar script. Likewise, the common identification of  emergency net frequencies for all countries within Region 1 and Region 2 was long overdue and would be extremely useful in times of disasters.

 

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Did the ARRL vote or otherwise argue against it?

I see no point in them doing that. IARU Region 2 membership chartered the B/C Committee to develop the plan after the Region 1 plan already in existence. ARRL already knew the FCC's rules would take precedence of any voluntary band plan. FCC already told them that 8 years ago. Since it would have no impact on our operating habits, why not be a "team player", and go along with the plan. In the long run, it may also help U. S. amateurs visiting these countries to do some temporary operating to secure a license and operating privileges, if the ARRL had no objection to the voluntary plan. As I said in an earlier post,  the common identification of  emergency net frequencies for all countries within Region 1 and Region 2 was long overdue and would be extremely useful in times of disasters.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Why be afraid to cast a dissenting vote, really?

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

You didn't answer the question, again.

I didn't ask if you saw any point in casting a dissenting vote, I asked if the ARRL voted against the band plan. We know they did vote for it, thus they must support the band plan. Or do they, since they also say it's just voluntary and doesn't apply to US amateurs (i.e. non-support), not too worry and other such blather?

This incongruity leads me to conclude that their vote either means nothing (and by extension their representation of US amateur radio to the IARU) because they voted for something they really didn't support or they didn't have the integrity or courage to vote against it. Either way, their actions appear unprincipled and/or disingenuous. At the very least it is illogical and unsupportable by any reasoned argument.

Did the ARRL vote or otherwise argue against it?

I see no point in them doing that. IARU Region 2 membership chartered the B/C Committee to develop the plan after the Region 1 plan already in existence. ARRL already knew the FCC's rules would take precedence of any voluntary band plan. FCC already told them that 8 years ago. Since it would have no impact on our operating habits, why not be a "team player", and go along with the plan. In the long run, it may also help U. S. amateurs visiting these countries to do some temporary operating to secure a license and operating privileges, if the ARRL had no objection to the voluntary plan. As I said in an earlier post,  the common identification of  emergency net frequencies for all countries within Region 1 and Region 2 was long overdue and would be extremely useful in times of disasters.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

You didn't answer the question, again.

I didn't ask if you saw any point in casting a dissenting vote, I asked if the ARRL voted against the band plan. We know they did vote for it, thus they must support the band plan. Or do they, since they also say it's just voluntary and doesn't apply to US amateurs (i.e. non-support), not too worry and other such blather?

This incongruity leads me to conclude that their vote either means nothing (and by extension their representation of US amateur radio to the IARU) because they voted for something they really didn't support or they didn't have the integrity or courage to vote against it. Either way, their actions appear unprincipled and/or disingenuous. At the very least it is illogical and unsupportable by any reasoned argument.

I see no reason why you can't support a plan even though your existing rules prevent you from using the plan even if you wanted to. It's obvious that IARU Region 2 reps felt the already in existence Region 1 voluntary band plan had enough merit to modify the existing Region 2 plan along similar lines. Personally, if I was in a voting position, I would have voted the same way.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Why be afraid to cast a dissenting vote, really?

I see no point to it especially since our own rules would preempt any voluntary band plan.

[WA3VJB]

Also posted to the AM Reflector.
Frankly I don't care which among ARRL officials passed along a specific bandwidth number at the IARU conference in Brazil. It should not have been uttered without clearing it with U.S. licensees expecting to support the Region 2 plan.

The concept of using specific numbers is wrong when applied to the Amateur Service, and should now be challenged and revised OUT of both the Region 1 and Region 2 plans as inappropriate.

Ramón, XE1KK, an IARU rep from Mexico, was so kind as to return my call as I struggled to find anyone who was at the table in Brazil. The U.S. delegates were not returning phone calls, and I knew action need to be taken quickly, so I stepped around League officials and connected with several non-U.S. delegates.

Ramón expressed dismay when I recounted a brief history of failed ARRL attempts domestically to achieve what they apparently had won at the IARU. A failed bandwidth Petition withdrawn because of opposition expressed to the FCC; an FCC Order against the League's request to impose the force of law to voluntary band plans, and the failure of a Petition to the FCC to impose bandwidth limitations.

So when I asked him where the bandwidth specifications came from in the IARU Region 2 plan, he said (rough quote, notes not in front of me) "That was Paul Rinaldo. He was concerned about people running wider than that."

Another non-U.S. delegate confirmed the information that Ramón had volunteered, and the context in which it was conveyed.

The context, which is hard to misconstrue twice, is that Rinaldo presented the number without any accompanying documentation as a basis it would be appropriate in the plan being discussed in Brazil.

And, just like other modifications and adaptations that make the Region 2 plan different than the earlier plan in Region 1, there was and should have been discussion by the club representing ALL U.S. licensees (per the IARU charter), that there is a strong, vibrant community of people in Region 2 who enjoy AM, and whose operations should be placed in the main table recognizing other activities and modes.

To that end, the League failed its constituents in Brazil, and by not immediately amending that error, continues to be of disservice.

More broadly, the ARRL, as the most influential policy force among IARU clubs, has failed to push back on needless specifications that will confuse rather than complement a voluntary band plan we all wish to support.

It is my contention that the ARRL is actually behind the bandwidth push for the reasons we've already discussed in great detail.

[ka3zlr]

Good Evening,

Thus Begins the conflict, our own rules, voluntary bandplan, left hand, right hand.
By these very discussions any outsider would question the need, why would anybody support a conflicting argument and the collective that creates it.

I described it right.."there is a Questionable Duality in Existence now"....a questionable parallel, cause for decision making inlue of. a reason to bring it to another forum, a foothold...

jack KA3ZLR

[W3SLK]

Paul said:

It is my contention that the ARRL is actually behind the bandwidth push for the reasons we've already discussed in great detail.

Now I wish this would be presented to the (be)League(d) rep who stated "...a few AM collegues...". I'm glad you have the credentials and the resources Paul, to bring this stuff to light. This consistent 'swearing allegiance to the ARRgghhL' is nothing short of lunacy! Two different sources confirm that (be)League(d) officials pushed this plan through. Though the same organization still claims it doesn't apply to us. Still no answer to why. And Pete before you say "to be in line with Reg. 1," just because it is there, doesn't mean that it has to be applicable here! Its the old "Would you jump off the bridge" logic. One thing this clearly demonstrates, is that since there has been such an uproar over this "bandplan", I am positive that the (be)Leage(d) lost any amount of integrity and creditability it had with the other participating countries. Hell they probably view them now as nothing more than a gadfly organization!

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

So now it's the "Well, all the other kids were doing it" excuse. As I said, illogical and unsupportable by any reasoned argument.

I see no reason why you can't support a plan even though your existing rules prevent you from using the plan even if you wanted to. It's obvious that IARU Region 2 reps felt the already in existence Region 1 voluntary band plan had enough merit to modify the existing Region 2 plan along similar lines. Personally, if I was in a voting position, I would have voted the same way.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Tom, it makes sense when you consider the ARRL is more interested in what the other IARU members think than what US amateurs think (they very group they are supposed to represent). Yet another illustration of their disconnection from reality.

Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I firmly believe that International amateur radio issues should not, and can not be ignored nor cast aside just because we are U. S. amateurs. As long as the IARU sits at the ITU table, the U. S. needs to be party to the decision making going on at the IARU even though FCC rules take precedence over all our amateur radio activities.

I don't believe it's a "disconnection from reality" but more like a "reality wake-up".

Tom, it makes sense when you consider the ARRL is more interested in what the other IARU members think than what US amateurs think (they very group they are supposed to represent). Yet another illustration of their disconnection from reality.

Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Ramón, XE1KK, an IARU rep from Mexico, was so kind as to return my call as I struggled to find anyone who was at the table in Brazil. The U.S. delegates were not returning phone calls, and I knew action need to be taken quickly, so I stepped around League officials and connected with several non-U.S. delegates.

Ramón expressed dismay when I recounted a brief history of failed ARRL attempts domestically to achieve what they apparently had won at the IARU. A failed bandwidth Petition withdrawn because of opposition expressed to the FCC; an FCC Order against the League's request to impose the force of law to voluntary band plans, and the failure of a Petition to the FCC to impose bandwidth limitations.

So when I asked him where the bandwidth specifications came from in the IARU Region 2 plan, he said (rough quote, notes not in front of me) "That was Paul Rinaldo. He was concerned about people running wider than that."

It's already being documented several times in this thread and elsewhere that his comments have been "misrepresented" "by a certain U. S. amateur". Unless you can get Ramon to come here and state what was actually said, your entire text above is questionable.

The bandwidth specifications were already specified, including AM, in the revised Region 1 voluntary band plan issued in January 2006. Why would Rinaldo specify bandwidth specifications for Region 2 when the charter for the B/C Committee was to develop a revised Region 2 band plan modeled from the Region 1 plan already in existence?

Another non-U.S. delegate confirmed the information that Ramón had volunteered, and the context in which it was conveyed.

The context, which is hard to misconstrue twice, is that Rinaldo presented the number without any accompanying documentation as a basis it would be appropriate in the plan being discussed in Brazil.

Now we have an "unnamed" non-U.S. delegate in the discussion. "Mystery person"
And, again I ask; why would Rinaldo present a number (which turns out to be the same number) that was already given (Region 1 band plan) before they developed the revised Region 2 band plan.

It is my contention that the ARRL is actually behind the bandwidth push for the reasons we've already discussed in great detail.

Based on past experience, we already know some of the reasons why the ARRL and others see the merits of some 'regulation by bandwidth" under the FCC's control. In reviewing all the voluntary IARU band plans, it seems that many member countries also have no problem with bandwidth controls.

But, if you want to follow a voluntary band plan with no specified bandwidths, you can go here:
http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

It's clearly a case of disconnection from reality since I never said International issues should be cast aside. The ARRL is there to represent US issues to the IARU. And since they are the ones saying the BP is only voluntary and changes nothing, they are the ones casting aside international concerns while simultaneously casting aside US concerns. That's a twofer on the useless scale and totally disconnected from any reality, international or US. On this the ARRL is unsupportable by any reasoned argument.

I firmly believe that International amateur radio issues should not, and can not be ignored nor cast aside just because we are U. S. amateurs. As long as the IARU sits at the ITU table, the U. S. needs to be party to the decision making going on at the IARU even though FCC rules take precedence over all our amateur radio activities.

I don't believe it's a "disconnection from reality" but more like a "reality wake-up".

Tom, it makes sense when you consider the ARRL is more interested in what the other IARU members think than what US amateurs think (they very group they are supposed to represent). Yet another illustration of their disconnection from reality.

Ah yes, Team Players = safety in numbers.

A quote from Ben Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Further flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, you provide no support for your premise the Region 2 BP MUST follow the Region 1 BP. Utter illogic.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Further flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, you provide no support for your premise the Region 2 BP MUST follow the Region 1 BP. Utter illogic.

Never said "must follow" (reading too fast )
See Region 2 Final Report:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/news-release-final-plenaryeng.pdf
Page 2: "The Report of Committee B/C..."
First bullet item

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Still waiting for the support to your premise.

Your words:

It's obvious that IARU Region 2 reps felt the already in existence Region 1 voluntary band plan had enough merit to modify the existing Region 2 plan along similar lines. Personally, if I was in a voting position, I would have voted the same way.

So what is the merit you speak of? Please describe how this merit is in the best interests of US amateurs.

Further flawed logic. Two wrongs don't make a right. Additionally, you provide no support for your premise the Region 2 BP MUST follow the Region 1 BP. Utter illogic.

Never said "must follow" (reading too fast )
See Region 2 Final Report:
http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/news-release-final-plenaryeng.pdf
Page 2: "The Report of Committee B/C..."
First bullet item

[Ed - N3LHB]

Did someone mention logic?

The ARRL seems to be out of their vulcan mind, supporting a bandplan that limits bw to 2.7 kc. Then, the next thing that happens is the bandplan seems to become good amateur practice, which then seems to become fcc law sooner or later.

Why would anyone who supports AM or any other any wideband mode support the ARRL's recommendation? Doesn't seem logical to me.

 

[wd8das]

WA3VJB writes:

>Frankly I don't care which among ARRL officials passed
>along a specific bandwidth number at the IARU
>conference in Brazil.

But I continue to wonder why Rinaldo doesn't deny it himself - if he didn't actually propose that element of the bandplan. 

>The concept of using specific numbers is wrong when
>applied to the Amateur Service, and should now be
>challenged and revised OUT of both the Region 1 and
>Region 2 plans as inappropriate.

Good point - it is especially improper without any specs defining the bandwidth or how it is to be measured.

Steve WD8DAS






-

[wd8das]

You know, looking back over the responses I've received from ARRL directors and officials, not one of them ever really addressed my contention that this sort of "restrictive", negative bandplan is not a good idea. They concentrated on the benefits of other, positive bandplans, those which enable a wide variety of modes to flourish.  But this IARU Region 2 plan cuts out existing modes and will make it harder for some future modes to be developed.

There's a parallel in another regulatory area that impacts ham radio:  zoning and restrictive covenants.  These regs and agreements can either be positive, protecting freedom of land use, within only wide limits, and ensuring that we can erect antennas and set up stations... or they can be negative, tightly controlling and limiting, blocking antennas and stations.  I think you know which kind is better for ham radio ops.  And the same is true for bandplans.

Steve WD8DAS

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Just remember: Narrow Bandwidth = Narrow Mind Width

You know, looking back over the responses I've received from ARRL directors and officials, not one of them ever really addressed my contention that this sort of "restrictive", negative bandplan is not a good idea. They concentrated on the benefits of other, positive bandplans, those which enable a wide variety of modes to flourish.  But this IARU Region 2 plan cuts out existing modes and will make it harder for some future modes to be developed.

There's a parallel in another regulatory area that impacts ham radio:  zoning and restrictive covenants.  These regs and agreements can either be positive, protecting freedom of land use, within only wide limits, and ensuring that we can erect antennas and set up stations... or they can be negative, tightly controlling and limiting, blocking antennas and stations.  I think you know which kind is better for ham radio ops.  And the same is true for bandplans.

Steve WD8DAS

[ka3zlr]

Good Day Everyone,

 Also to be considered, is the same tactics that some of the government bodies controlled media etc use.."Attention Span"...there is a known that the public overall has a limited attention span, "Time" out of sight out of mind, case in point what color are we at with the danger level for the homeland, I don't know it hasn't been spoken of in a long while..
 
 It's a very worthy game these management tactics, skills, just ignore it, business as usual, yep, yes sir... I'm gone be 51 this year, i'm starting to feel the slowing down..reflexes are slower.. thoughts fade easier...they count on this believe me...


another thing, i like how when these things come to pass, i have read this "Us and Them" that's gotta stop...but it won't...after all these years and all the grief..you'd think by now we'd be over this...they make a move.. we get upset..they send out the damage control underlings...we come down with a sledge hammer...the smoke clears...

Unbelievable.....always a constant up hill battle...and the hell of it is we're all in the same army...

jack KA3ZLR.

[k4kyv]

...case in point what color are we at with the danger level for the homeland, I don't know it hasn't been spoken of in a long while...

Don't worry, we'll hear about it any day now.  An election's coming up.