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

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

 "When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side."

  - Ayn Rand

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

[WA3VJB]

Initially posted to SPAR's website and QRZ.com.
SPAR is a partner to amfone.net.From Walt, W5ALT:
The following article by Alberto, LU1DZ translated to English is reprinted from the December 2008 SPAR Roundtable and was originally distributed (in Spanish) in Argentina by the UARC (Union of Argentinean Radio Clubs). Perhaps some of our LU friends also have concerns.

Radio Bulletin Nº 2 of the Union of Argentinean Radio Clubs. UARC 16-Nov-07

The Band Plan of the IARU

Recently a new band plan has been made public by the IARU Region 2, which was approved in the September meeting in the city of Brasilia. The plan, which seems to be a copy of the original plan that the ARRL tried to present to the FCC and which earned the rejection of its members, has generated various concerns, some very obvious and others frankly unthinkable.

It's all well and good that some local spokespeople have pointed out that it will not have an immediate effect in our country, which already has a band structure segmented by bandwidth of the emissions. The proposed plan is very similar to the plan pushed by the German DARC in Europe for Region I, which contains some essential elements that permits it to be generally acceptable. The Region II plan almost prohibits transmissions using AM mode and would generate some points of conflict with other modes that needs more study.

For its part SPAR, The Society for the Preservation of Amateur Radio, a group of more than 900 amateurs that have joined together to assure that the technical aspects, as well as the spirit and feel of amateur radio will be available for future generations, has expressed their concern that the band plan would preclude space for experimenting with any mode that uses more than 2.7 kHz of bandwidth.

The SPAR statement continues:

In the US there are a large number of AM enthusiasts, who purchase and rebuild older equipment for use on the bands. This enthusiastic community firmly opposes both the flawed ARRL proposal as well as the IARU proposal for Region II. We wish it were not the case and that the IARU would authorize the use of AM emissions or at least remove the bandwidth limitation proposed.

The difference between the Region I plan and this one is that AM emissions are not limited in Region I whereas the Region II plan would need some clarifications before it could be presented to the authorities of each country.
It's all well that the band plans made by the IARU are not mandatory for any country, however it should not escape attention that these plans serve as a base of support to whatever each member society of the IARU might want to present in their specific country, moreover since the IARU urges the member societies to present the plan as a form of harmony with the objective of incorporating it into the regulations.

I think that the best explanation of why the IARU decided to make the needed changes in the original plan can be found in the following words of Hector M. Ombroni, LU6UO:
“From the beginning of time, the abuse of power over the wisdom of knowledge has brought grave consequences to all societies. At some point the degradation, in its final stage, destroys even the foundation that sustains it before recognizing its failure.”

The avalanche of "MERCHANDISING" in all areas of society is subjugating people and governments. It is not at all strange, then, that this is happening in the world of amateur radio.

When the prudent profit should be to invest in promoting deep understanding of the activities of their group, they do exactly the opposite, looking only at the present, of course motivated by the temptation of a future almost virgin market.

One glance at the medium or long term will encounter a large number of people speaking of trivialities, because for them the RIG is a magic box and an antenna is something from the War of the Galaxies, given the superlative ignorance to which they have been pushed.

There is no worse condition in a person than that of ignorance and not wanting to learn, because that deepens their slavery and increases their willingness to follow the orders of the few "Illuminati."

Some friends have expressed grave worries about the limitations imposed by this band plan and have asked if it is necessary that the IARU make these recommendations in view of the limited activity on the bands and have questioned the true objectives of these modifications to the current plans that up until now seem to be functioning reasonably well.

In that respect I recommend that they go directly to the UARC and their national radio clubs or at least to those responsible in each area of the IARU and make known to them their thoughts or opposition.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Pete,

The chart is not the whole plan.  The band plan is the charts AND all of the text and the logic all of that together implies.  The Region 1 plan is 5 pages, the Region 2 plan is 4 pages.

The Region 2 plan is explicit in eliminating 6 kHz AM from 160, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 12 meters.

The Region 1 plan note allows AM on all HF bands where phone is allowed.  I have always assumed this is the “normal AM” of at least 6 kHz bandwidth.  Therefore the Region 1 plan allows normal AM on all HF bands.  The Region 2 plan does not, only in two 25 kHz segments on 80/75 and one segment on 10 meters.  This is a big difference.

If this is not the case, then what is the purpose of the note (rule) in the Region 1 plan meaning 2.7 kHz AM is to yield way to 2.7 kHz SSB?  Are you insisting this the correct meaning?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete,

The chart is not the whole plan.  The band plan is the charts AND all of the text and the logic all of that together implies.  The Region 1 plan is 5 pages, the Region 2 plan is 4 pages.

The Region 2 plan is explicit in eliminating 6 kHz AM from 160, 40, 20, 17, 15, and 12 meters.

I will agree there is no mention of AM on 160, 17, 15, and 12 Meters.
However from the 1/1/08 Region 2 Chart:
40M 7100-7300 KHz - Bandwidth box has (*) - (*) allows DSB AM 6KHz (page 4, at top of page)
20M 14285-14300 KHz - Bandwidth box also has (*) - same rule
160M and 15M - My personal opinion is that the Committee, for whatever reason, omitted the (*) in the Bandwidth box for "All Modes".
17M and 12M are such narrow segments, to me it's a non-issue. They don't even allow contesting on these bands.

The Region 1 plan note allows AM on all HF bands where phone is allowed.  I have always assumed this is the “normal AM” of at least 6 kHz bandwidth.  Therefore the Region 1 plan allows normal AM on all HF bands.  The Region 2 plan does not, only in two 25 kHz segments on 80/75 and one segment on 10 meters.  This is a big difference.

Yes, I will agree that AM is allowed from 1840 KHz to 29.7 MHz wherever "All Modes" is specified. However, only from 29.2 MHz to 29.7 MHz is 6 KHz bandwidth specified as maximum for "All Modes". So, to assume that you can operate 6 KHz bandwidth with the AM mode in the "All Modes" section of each band below 29.2 MHz, may not be the correct assumption.   

I personally don't know of a large contingent of AM operators operating out of Region 1 in the past, so AM may not be a big issue with them.

If this is not the case, then what is the purpose of the note (rule) in the Region 1 plan meaning 2.7 kHz AM is to yield way to 2.7 kHz SSB?  Are you insisting this the correct meaning?

In order for it to make sense, they need to identify what is the maximum bandwidth for AM below 29.2 MHz or the statement only applies to "All Mode" activities between 29.2 - 29.7 MHz where the maximum bandwidth of 6 KHz is specified.
Note: back in Reply 476 Sumner said in a response to a W1UX e-mail:
"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." Unfortunately, both the Region 1 and Region 2 band plans in their frequency/band charts, only identify maximum bandwidth allowed.

[w3jn]

Couple of points, Pete.   Nobody has "prohibited" contesting on 17 and 12 meters.  It's just that contest sponsors consciously avoid those bands.  If I were to start a "Worked All 50C5s" contest for 17 and 12, there's no rules violation.  So I don't know who "they" are.

Also, the ITU bandwidth recommendations deal generally with non-amateur emissions.  I note that they also include an 8 KHz bandwidth recommendation for broadcast.  And the way they "calculate" bandwidth merely takes into account the modulating frequency.  It is a flawed method of "measuring" transmitted bandwidth, but one that is apparently simple to understand.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Couple of points, Pete.   Nobody has "prohibited" contesting on 17 and 12 meters.  It's just that contest sponsors consciously avoid those bands.  If I were to start a "Worked All 50C5s" contest for 17 and 12, there's no rules violation.  So I don't know who "they" are.

"they" - contest sponsers >> ARRL, CQ, IARU, etc.
I should have been more clear.
But, as it relates to the thread, my point of 17M and 12M being a non-issue remains unchanged.

Also, the ITU bandwidth recommendations deal generally with non-amateur emissions.  I note that they also include an 8 KHz bandwidth recommendation for broadcast.  And the way they "calculate" bandwidth merely takes into account the modulating frequency.  It is a flawed method of "measuring" transmitted bandwidth, but one that is apparently simple to understand.

Simple works for me.

[Tom WA3KLR]

The ITU bandwidth recommendation is based on this premise:
The non-ham users wind up with assigned channels at 3 kHz channel spacing also.

(3 kHz spacings in the phone bands - A system we may need to consider adopting since we have the problems with the appliance operators who don't understand the bandwidths of AM transmissions and the AM mode receivers, and also those who think that 3884.0 is a different channel (cammawn) than 3885.0)

[WA3VJB]

ITU chief meets with non-U.S. delegates of IARU Region 2
Details not disclosed.
Notice, as did Lee, W6EM,

The fact that David Sumner is no longer Secretary is of interest.  Change is good.....

(via QRZ.com)IARU Region 2 RSS News Service

Ramon Santoyo XE1KK Secretary of IARU Region 2 (the Americas) has announced that an RSS news service is now available.

The service is available in Spanish as well as English and you can subscribe to them from the “Links” section of the IARU Region 2 website.

http://www.iaru-r2.org/hb9eht-in-guatemala/

http://www.iaru-r2.org/iaru-r2-in-fracap-2007/

[Tom WA3KLR]

"The fact that David Sumner is no longer Secretary is of interest."

Gee, what are the odds that this will get mentioned in the next ARRL Newsletter?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

ITU chief meets with non-U.S. delegates of IARU Region 2
Details not disclosed.
Notice, as did Lee, W6EM,

The fact that David Sumner is no longer Secretary is of interest.  Change is good.....

(via QRZ.com)

Dave Sumner is Secretary of the IARU.

From the IARU Region 2 final meeting minutes in September 2007:
"The Conference's last order of business was the election of officers and other Executive Committee members for the next three years. Rod Stafford, W6ROD, declined to stand for re-election as President but will remain a Director. Moving to the office of President is Secretary Reinaldo Leandro, YV5AMH, of Venezuela. Dario Jurado, HP1DJ, of Panama was re-elected Vice President, and Donawa was re-elected Treasurer and Director. Santoyo was newly elected as Secretary and joins the Executive Committee for the first time."

Note: The B/C committee (where the revised band plan was developed) was chaired by Ramon Santoyo, XE1KK, of Mexico City, Mexico.

[Tom WA3KLR]

Paul,

Can you straighten out this "news reporting"? Are we getting remarks based on some people thinking Dave Sumner WAS Region 2 Secretary?  Is he out or not as the International Secretary?

[WA3VJB]

Rinaldo served as Secretary during the Region 2 band plan deliberations, that's why it was wrong for the midwest Director Jim Weaver to assert there was no role in the matter by the ARRL. He has not answered my request for a corrective email to his constituents by the way. Maybe someone in his division can appeal to his ethics.

Stafford's departure may have been a good thing too.
They've apparently been cooking up a bandwidth-based band plan ever since Rinaldo failed domestically in his one-man mission to push it through the FCC, or at least dating back to when the writing on the wall became clear most people opposed his scheme.

This means, during all that time¹, there has been NO public or visible effort to elicit input from U.S. licensees.From   --w6rod@comcast.net
to   Paul Courson
date   Oct 7, 2007 10:46 AM
subject   Re: IARU Region 2 Band Plan
mailed-by   comcast.net
   
Paul
 
The Region 2 HF Committee has been studying the HF band plans for the last two years to see if any changes should be made.  The R2HFC was made up of amateurs from Canada, the U.S., Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, and some of the islands in the Carribean.
 
Their report was presented to the working group at the Region 2 Conference.  The working group at the conference (all societies attending the conference) dealing with HF matters made a number of changes in the band plans including trying to harmonize it as much as possible with the band plans from the other two regions.
 
That working group then presented the band plan to the plenary session at the conference and it was adopted.
 
Rod W6ROD
¹It was not an ad lib or impromptu suggestion to use enumerated bandwidths, but rather a prepared position, with forethought, possibly in line with Harrison's assertion the Board of Directors would have developed such policy ahead of the Brazil conference.

[Tom WA3KLR]

So much for quotes from QRZ.com.  I guess I will get my news from AM Forum!

[WA3VJB]

Your confusion is understandable, Tom,
it's like a floating crap game, where you never know who's dealing.

If you look at the IARU site you will see a rundown of executives.
The titles may or may not match who actually is doing the dealing.

Furthermore, each Region is a separate company, think of them as subsidiaries to the main IARU. This is why Larry Price could deny having any role in the Region 2 plan, since the mothership that he is in charge of did not have a say in where the little boat (Region 2, the S.S. Rinaldo) went.

(Now envision Skipper, hitting Gilligan with the hat, if he gets out of line.)

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Grab the tail............

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Paul,

Can you straighten out this "news reporting"? Are we getting remarks based on some people thinking Dave Sumner WAS Region 2 Secretary?  Is he out or not as the International Secretary?

Actually back in Reply 5, October 6, 2007, you said:
"The last time I researched the IARU Region 2 staff, which was a couple of years ago, I came up with some fellow by the name of Dave Sumner as it's secretary.  Ever hear of him?"

[Tom WA3KLR]

So much for off-the-top-of-the-head comments.  22 posts later I posted the actual IARU Region 2 list. 

If you say Dave Sumner is on any committee you want to name, you won't be 100 % right and you won't be 100 % wrong on average.

[WA3VJB]

Rinaldo served as Secretary during the Region 2 band plan deliberations, that's why it was wrong for the midwest Director Jim Weaver to assert there was no role in the matter by the ARRL. He has not answered my request for a corrective email to his constituents by the way.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: K8JE
Date: Dec 4, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: Request received ?
To: Paul Courson

I am issuing a clarification.

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division

E-mail: 
ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!
Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

[Pete, WA2CWA]

So much for off-the-top-of-the-head comments.  22 posts later I posted the actual IARU Region 2 list. 

If you say Dave Sumner is on any committee you want to name, you won't be 100 % right and you won't be 100 % wrong on average.

But, in the era of fast finger typing, it's much better to be 100% right, if you do your homework.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Rinaldo served as Secretary during the Region 2 band plan deliberations, that's why it was wrong for the midwest Director Jim Weaver to assert there was no role in the matter by the ARRL. He has not answered my request for a corrective email to his constituents by the way.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: K8JE
Date: Dec 4, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: RE: Request received ?
To: Paul Courson

I am issuing a clarification.

Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director
ARRL Great Lakes Division

E-mail: 
ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is!
Members - The Reason ARRL Is!

Excellent response from Jim; you probably made a new friend and even you can include yourself in the second line.

In the real sense, Rinaldo was only the scribe/secretary for the IARU Region 2 B/C Committee. Every IARU Region 2 committee member wears another hat beyond the IARU. When presented to the entire group, the ARRL had only one vote. I guess the rest of the members saw no problem with it.

[wd8das]

Jim, K8JE wrote:
>>I am issuing a clarification.

Pete, WA2CWA wrote:

>Excellent response from Jim;

Pete, are you kidding?  That one short sentence hardly any response at all.

Steve WD8DAS

[K4QE]

Since there appears to be some confusion, here's the info right from the proverbial horse's mouth.

According to the www.iaru.org website, Dave Sumner is the current Secretary of the IARU, not IARU Region 2.

BTW, take a look at the footer of the web page.  Mr. Sumner is the maintainer of the page, and he last edited it on Oct. 22nd.

Oh, and Larry Price is the current President...

[K4QE]

Check out who the IARU's current International Secretariat is:

http://www.iaru.org/iaruis.html

You can check out the IS's responsibilities here:

http://www.iaru.org/iarucnst.html#A5

So, it looks like the ARRL is footing the bill for the IARU's operating expenses, too.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

BTW, take a look at the footer of the web page.  Mr. Sumner is the maintainer of the page, and he last edited it on Oct. 22nd.

Oh, and Larry Price is the current President...

The new Region 2 Secretary came on board at the September 2007 meeting. Dave also spent time at the ITU meeting in Geneva from October 22 to November 16th. It's great to be in management.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Jim, K8JE wrote:
>>I am issuing a clarification.

Pete, WA2CWA wrote:

>Excellent response from Jim;

Pete, are you kidding?  That one short sentence hardly any response at all.

Steve WD8DAS

Seems perfectly clear to me. Maybe you should wait till he writes the "clarification" and posts it on his Division's web site or by e-mail to his constituents since they should be his first priority to receive notification.

I'm sure the amateur radio world is anxious to hear this "clarification".