The AM Forum
July 24, 2024, 04:46:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 20 [21] 22 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.  (Read 440517 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #500 on: November 30, 2007, 09:05:36 AM »

So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.
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 #501 on: November 30, 2007, 09:14:39 AM »

Tom said:
Quote
So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.

Exactly!!!!!
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 #502 on: November 30, 2007, 12:41:36 PM »

So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.

I did a search of this entire thread and see no reference to any mention of "AM interference".
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
KF1Z
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1796


Are FETs supposed to glow like that?


« Reply #503 on: November 30, 2007, 01:02:40 PM »

So, since this new IARU Region 2 band plan is not really for the U.S. AMateurs, I would like to hear the objective data of exactly what Region 2 country was complaining of AM interference from what other Region 2 country.

I did a search of this entire thread and see no reference to any mention of "AM interference".

"..Excuse me....  is this the right room for an argument?"

Python, Monty
Logged

Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #504 on: November 30, 2007, 01:15:58 PM »

This topic has now surpassed the previous number 1 most viewed topic.
 
The number of posts in this topic holds the number 1 spot by a 3:1 margin.

Statistics of the importance of the subject matter.


Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #505 on: November 30, 2007, 01:19:26 PM »

Sorry you've paid for abuse.
Argument Clinic is down to the right.

(unless we argue in our spare time)
Logged
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #506 on: November 30, 2007, 01:36:31 PM »

Pete said "I did a search of this entire thread and see no reference to any mention of "AM interference".

I haven't seen any mention of AM interference here either Pete.  I am presuming that the plan's new restricted AM rules are to address such interference.   That is usually why such things are added to operating rules.  My comments refer to what logic has taken place in the IARU Region 2 proceedings, not based on comments in this forum.

Again, what countries were having AM interference in Region 2, or what countries have congestion to the point where they feel cutting in half the bandwidth of the few AM QSOs are on the band will alleviate their problem and on what band is this a problem?

For this forum it's mainly a rhetorical question unless someone here has objective information.
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #507 on: November 30, 2007, 01:58:02 PM »

This topic has now surpassed the previous number 1 most viewed topic.
 
The number of posts in this topic holds the number 1 spot by a 3:1 margin.

Statistics of the importance of the subject matter.

I remember when the counter clicked a hair over 8000 reads and wondered if we, with our friendly informative discussions, could drive it over 11.1K. I guess even "Guests" found interest in the topic. One evening last week I counted 29 guests at one time viewing the topic. Without a doubt, this is the forum to come and find informative, useful, creative, and current issue topics related to AM and amateur radio discussed in a rational manner.
Logged

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

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #508 on: November 30, 2007, 02:25:14 PM »

I haven't seen any mention of AM interference here either Pete.  I am presuming that the plan's new restricted AM rules are to address such interference.   That is usually why such things are added to operating rules.  My comments refer to what logic has taken place in the IARU Region 2 proceedings, not based on comments in this forum.

Again, what countries were having AM interference in Region 2, or what countries have congestion to the point where they feel cutting in half the bandwidth of the few AM QSOs are on the band will alleviate their problem and on what band is this a problem?

For this forum it's mainly a rhetorical question unless someone here has objective information.

I think you need to roll the question back to the Region 1 committee members who chose the numbers initially. If the ultimate plan of the IARU is to bring all three Regions into harmony with a common set of bandwidth numbers, Region 1 specified these numbers 2 years ago.

Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #509 on: November 30, 2007, 03:26:19 PM »

No Pete, we don't need to "roll back" the question to Region 1.  Region 1 does not have the AM restriction that Region 2 adopted this past September.  The issue is solely a Region 2 and ARRL mis-behavior issue.  Paul Rinaldo is apparently at the forefront of this new AM-bandwidth limiting rule. 

IF there is no AM interference between Region 2 countries and no help in alleviating congestion by enacting the rule, why is it "needed" and adopted?

It is not too late for the IARU Region 2 officials to revise the new band plan and delete the AM restrictions from the HF bands.  The IARU can save face and not let the ARRL antics drag it down also.

There is no need for every region to have the same "world-harmonized" band plans.  That's the point to having regions and "regional representation".   Otherwise it's just the New World Odor.
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #510 on: November 30, 2007, 04:04:25 PM »

No Pete, we don't need to "roll back" the question to Region 1.  Region 1 does not have the AM restriction that Region 2 adopted this past September.  The issue is solely a Region 2 and ARRL mis-behavior issue.  Paul Rinaldo is apparently at the forefront of this new AM-bandwidth limiting rule. 

IF there is no AM interference between Region 2 countries and no help in alleviating congestion by enacting the rule, why is it "needed" and adopted?

It is not too late for the IARU Region 2 officials to revise the new band plan and delete the AM restrictions from the HF bands.  The IARU can save face and not let the ARRL antics drag it down also.

There is no need for every region to have the same "world-harmonized" band plans.  That's the point to having regions and "regional representation".   Otherwise it's just the New World Odor.

What Region 1 band plan are you looking at? The one I'm seeing has 2700 Hz maximum bandwidth for "All Modes" from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz.
http://www.iaru-r1.org/05%2010%2009%20Region%201%20HF%20Bandplan%202006%20(Amended).pdf
Should I be looking at something different?
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #511 on: November 30, 2007, 07:32:07 PM »

Well Pete, if you don’t comprehend the difference in AM operations between the Region 1 and Region 2 band plans by now you may well have a reading comprehension deficiency. 

Otherwise, as a Region 1 bloke might say, “Are you daft?”

Pete, read page 4 of the Region 1 band plan again.  Let me know when you spot the difference to the Region 2 plan.
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #512 on: November 30, 2007, 07:40:34 PM »

This topic has now surpassed the previous number 1 most viewed topic.
 
The number of posts in this topic holds the number 1 spot by a 3:1 margin.

Statistics of the importance of the subject matter.

I remember when the counter clicked a hair over 8000 reads and wondered if we, with our friendly informative discussions, could drive it over 11.1K. I guess even "Guests" found interest in the topic. One evening last week I counted 29 guests at one time viewing the topic. Without a doubt, this is the forum to come and find informative, useful, creative, and current issue topics related to AM and amateur radio discussed in a rational manner.


Interesting,

 Could it be that the "ARRL is pushing a thinly veiled bandwidth proposal VIA the IARU" and more people are finding this out and might be concerned. I wonder why you shouldn't invite some of the prospective creators of such an agreement to an informative discussion here, you could facilitate the meeting and set the agenda.

Nothing wrong in a fact finding mission, it would be good for PR and settle all issues.

jack KA3ZLR.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #513 on: November 30, 2007, 08:39:27 PM »

Well Pete, if you don’t comprehend the difference in AM operations between the Region 1 and Region 2 band plans by now you may well have a reading comprehension deficiency. 

Otherwise, as a Region 1 bloke might say, “Are you daft?”

Pete, read page 4 of the Region 1 band plan again.  Let me know when you spot the difference to the Region 2 plan.

In the Region 1 band plan, page 4, Notes, it says: "Amplitude Modulation may be used in the telephony sub bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users."

The AM Mode is listed under "All Modes" on Page 3. However, the bandwidth limitation for "All Modes" from 135.7 KHz to 29.2 MHz as listed in their chart is 2700 Hz. Only from 29.2 to 29.7 MHz is 6000 Hz maximum bandwidth listed on their chart.

Actually when the 1st revised Region 2 band plan was issued when we started this thread, most of the Region 2 plan, with regional and frequency differences taken into account, looked very similar to the Region 1 plan. It wasn't until October 16, 2007, several weeks after the first Region 2 plan was issued, that more AM segments were identified with an (*) and with the notation at the end stating "DSB AM Phone allowed in this segment with a maximum bandwidth of 6 KHz". This Note does not appear in the Region 1 plan.

When it comes to rules, regulations or band plans, I never assume what they don't state.
Logged

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

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #514 on: November 30, 2007, 08:49:41 PM »

Could it be that the "ARRL is pushing a thinly veiled bandwidth proposal VIA the IARU" and more people are finding this out and might be concerned. I wonder why you shouldn't invite some of the prospective creators of such an agreement to an informative discussion here, you could facilitate the meeting and set the agenda.

Nothing wrong in a fact finding mission, it would be good for PR and settle all issues.

jack KA3ZLR.

If you review the threads here, or do a word search, you'll find quoted e-mails from the ARRL President and ARRL CEO that answer a number of questions plus a number of members have received e-mail responses, reportedly talked on the phone, talked with their Directors, became members, lost 1/2 of their 160M dipole when a neighbor was cutting some tree branches and forgot it was there(Grrr), etc.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #515 on: November 30, 2007, 09:09:13 PM »

Could it be that the "ARRL is pushing a thinly veiled bandwidth proposal VIA the IARU" and more people are finding this out and might be concerned. I wonder why you shouldn't invite some of the prospective creators of such an agreement to an informative discussion here, you could facilitate the meeting and set the agenda.

Nothing wrong in a fact finding mission, it would be good for PR and settle all issues.

jack KA3ZLR.

If you review the threads here, or do a word search, you'll find quoted e-mails from the ARRL President and ARRL CEO that answer a number of questions plus a number of members have received e-mail responses, reportedly talked on the phone, talked with their Directors, became members, lost 1/2 of their 160M dipole when a neighbor was cutting some tree branches and forgot it was there(Grrr), etc.


Now wait a minute Pete you mentioned rational behavior and creative postings..I made a rational request and you mentioned past posts...Past Posts are prologue.....LOL

We need a Union...LOL........
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #516 on: November 30, 2007, 10:47:09 PM »

Quote
In the Region 1 band plan, page 4, Notes, it says: "Amplitude Modulation may be used in the telephony sub bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users."

This reveals much about those who wrote the band plan. The term channel is used. Must be a bunch of CBers!

It's also interesting that AM ops must give consideration to adjacent channel users, but to adjacent channel users must not give consideration to them. And when using other modes no consideration needs to be given to adjacent channel users.

Amazing stuff.
Logged
Ed/KB1HYS
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1848



« Reply #517 on: November 30, 2007, 11:37:41 PM »

In the Region 1 band plan, page 4, Notes, it says: "Amplitude Modulation may be used in the telephony sub bands providing consideration is given to adjacent channel users."

This is still a footnote that "allows" AM use on HF. Better than the Region 2 plan, by a lot. BUT we need to get EQUAL consideration as SSB not to be treated as a Special CASE....

PHONE IS PHONE IS PHONE 

so ALL VOICE telephony transmissions should all fall under the SAME rules. 

A3E = J3E  emmissions  See Below they are ALL AM modes!!!!

We don't need NEW rules, just use the existing ones Correctly, they DO cover enough modes...

Quote
The formula for the emmision designations, loosely from ITU radio
regulations 264 through 273, and Appendix 6, Part A, is:

[BBBB]MNI[DM],

where <SNIP>

M = Modulation Type

N   None
A   AM (Amplitude Modulation), double sideband, full carrier
H   AM, single sideband, full carrier
R   AM, single sideband, reduced or controlled carrier
J   AM, single sideband, suppressed carrier
B   AM, independent sidebands
C   AM, vestigial sideband  (commonly analog TV)

F   Angle-modulated, straight FM
G   Angle-modulated, phase modulation (common; sounds like FM)

D   Carrier is amplitude and angle modulated

P   Pulse, no modulation
K   Pulse, amplitude modulation (PAM, PSM)
L   Pulse, width modulation (PWM)
M   Pulse, phase or position modulation (PPM)
Q   Pulse, carrier also angle-modulated during pulse
W   Pulse, two or more modes used

X   All cases not covered above

N =  Nature of modulating signal

0   None
1   Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation
2   Digital, with modulation
3   Single analog channel
7   Two or more digital channels
8   Two or more analog channels
9   Composite, one or more digital channel, one or more analog

X   All cases not covered above


I = Information type

N   None
A   Aural telegraphy, for people (Morse code)
B   Telegraphy for machine copy (RTTY, fast Morse)
C   Analog fax
D   Data, telemetry, telecommand
E   Telephony, voice, sound broadcasting
F   Video, television
W   Combinations of the above

X   All cases not covered above


Logged

73 de Ed/KB1HYS
Happiness is Hot Tubes, Cold 807's, and warm room filling AM Sound.
 "I've spent three quarters of my life trying to figure out how to do a $50 job for $.50, the rest I spent trying to come up with the $0.50" - D. Gingery
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #518 on: December 01, 2007, 12:05:00 AM »

Notice that table of emissions includes full carrier AM but leaves out double sideband with reduced or suppressed carrier.
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
k1qar
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #519 on: December 01, 2007, 08:25:44 AM »

The basis for a complaint to "de-certify" ARRL exists if one of the other Region 2 reps is willing to go on record verifying the  rumor that ARRL invented this plan.
Logged
W9GT
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1240


Nipper - Manager of K9 Affairs


WWW
« Reply #520 on: December 01, 2007, 08:40:09 AM »


It's also interesting that AM ops must give consideration to adjacent channel users, but to adjacent channel users must not give consideration to them. And when using other modes no consideration needs to be given to adjacent channel users.

Amazing stuff.
[/quote]

This is what is known as the "diode effect".

It seems to me that all of this concern (from the ARRL, IARU, and others) about bandwidth is very misplaced in attempts to apply it to the amateur radio service.  We do not need to cram the maximum amount of "intelligence" into the minimum amount of space as money-driven commercial services do.  If anything, activity on the amateur bands has somewhat decreased recently.  We need to be free to experiment and to utilize our granted spectrum in ways that enable innovation and enjoyment of the radio art.  These continual efforts to regulate us into virtual oblivion are unwelcomed , at best. 

73,  Jack, W9GT
Logged

Tubes and Black Wrinkle Rule!!
73, Jack, W9GT
Tom WA3KLR
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2122



« Reply #521 on: December 01, 2007, 12:21:40 PM »

I can’t agree with you more Jack.  This is a hobby service, not a commercial global communications conglomerate as some people apparently believe.

I have been thinking lately about what non-radio hobby interests I have had in the past that should be re-activated, and about amateurs trying to legislate Amateurs.  I have lost a lot of respect for the ARRL, and I am losing respect for the IARU; hams arguing against hams, etcetera; and mostly due to a couple of old farts using their trusted positions for their personal agenda and/or decades-old personal vendettas.
Logged

73 de Tom WA3KLR  AMI # 77   Amplitude Modulation - a force Now and for the Future!
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #522 on: December 01, 2007, 12:35:34 PM »

 A posting by Paul VJB on another list reminded me that I'd wanted to get back to the ARRL Great Lakes Director about his recent mass-email on the subject of the IARU bandplan changes...  I wrote him the following:


"Great Lakes ARRL Director" wrote:

> "The fact is that ARRL did not participate in
> developing this bandplan. We had no representation
> on the bandplan committee."

I believe you may be mistaken on this point.

The IARU report says

> "The report of Committee B/C, a combined technical
> and operational committee dealing with both HF and
> VHF/UHF matters, was received next. This committee was
> chaired by Ramón Santoyo, XE1KK, with Paul Rinaldo, W4RI
> serving as secretary. The Plenary adopted all of the
> Committee’s recommendations...

Paul Rinaldo is from the ARRL.

I've been following the changes to the IARU Region 2 bandplan closely since they suddenly popped on the scene. I wrote to IARU officials right after the word came out, and they clearly stated that the tight bandwidth limit came from Paul Rinaldo of the ARRL.    He was as saying "People are running too wide now."

I corresponded with League officials on this issue, and the President, Joel Harrison, and Dave Sumner, both confirmed that the ARRL was involved in the new bandplan.  So I believe your information that the League was not involved may be incorrect.

I am VERY much against such limits in a bandplan - tight regulation and restrictions like these goes completely against the experimental and innovative aspects of ham radio.  The plan as published does not match common practice on the bands today and would likely be ignored by thousands of operators in any case.  Note that the existing Region 2 bandplan did match current practice quite closely, yet it is being discarded.

But, voluntary or not, my position remains that we need no such plans restricting operation by bandwidth.  Bandplans like this have a history of increasing the stress among amateurs with arguments and finger-pointing.  And voluntary ones tend to become ever more "official" over time, so I think it is vital that we avoid tight restriction and limitation which could hinder our future communication options.  I feel it is vital that we err on the side of flexibility and less restrictions, rather than more and tighter controls that eliminate future choices.  If we are to remain viable as an organized hobby we've got to be open to a wide variety of modes, both old and new.

When I made my views known to ARRL officials, the response was defensiveness and condescension.  They've variously said that US hams needn't worry because it is "voluntary", because it is "really meant for other countries in Region 2", or the strange claim "the new plan is not really restrictive in nature".

I must disagree with the contention that IARU Region 2 bandplan does not matter for hams in the United States, and we need not worry about it.   The first paragraph of the plan itself defines its purpose:  IARU Member Societies (such as ARRL) are to work for its incorporation into authority (such as FCC) regulations.   And did not ARRL vote in support of that wording?   So I must conclude that the ARRL must support the eventual incorporation of this plan into the FCC rules.  Apparently it is important, after all...

If it is really meaningless to U.S. amateurs, then why does the League support it?  And why is ARRL spending thousands of dollars to attend the IARU meetings and participate in the drafting of these changes, if it is of no consequence to us?  Some of the responses I received expressed the hope that the new bandplan would help "control" the growth of old modes such as AM and new ones such as WinLink, at the same time telling my I shouldn't worry as it won't mean anything in the U.S. - a strange contradiction. 

ARRL represents our country in the IARU, so as a member of ARRL I thought I would have a voice in this process, or at least have been informed.  Clearly I was wrong.   It was done behind the scenes without consulting the membership in any way, and member efforts to discuss the matter have been viewed as ignorant interference.   There has been little or no information about the changes to this bandplan in QST, on the ARRL website, the ARRL-Letter, or elsewhere.  I've not seen any mention of the role ARRL is taking in this policy process either.   

One League official stated that we needn't expect a further effort by the ARRL to get bandwidth controls into FCC rules for at least two years - not until the League has had a chance to "educate" the members and other amateurs on the matter and get them on-board.  This view crystallizes the situation quite nicely.  There seems to be some confusion as to the role of the League, and that of the officers and directors.  Shouldn't the views of the members be the ARRL's first priority in the making of policy, rather than the last?  Or are League officials to set the course and we must follow along, sometimes with a bit of "education" to set us straight?

I'm very disappointed in the ARRL.  Whatever happened to the slogan "Of, by, and for the amateur?"

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS


Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #523 on: December 01, 2007, 12:48:48 PM »

I find it amusing that the recent ARRL Letter has eleven long paragraphs on the revocation of a California ham's ticket on character issues, but cannot spare any space in there to explain their role in the IARU bandplan changes.

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #524 on: December 01, 2007, 12:52:00 PM »



Out of Sight, Out Of Mind.

Jack KA3ZLR.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 [21] 22 ... 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 0.089 seconds with 19 queries.