The AM Forum
July 24, 2024, 05:45:10 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 ... 22 [23] 24 ... 29   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: IARU REGION 2 MF/HF BAND PLAN, effective 01 JA 2008, would limit AM operation.  (Read 440577 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
W1RC
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


« Reply #550 on: December 06, 2007, 07:54:31 AM »

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

So, it looks like the ARRL is footing the bill for the IARU's operating expenses, too.
The IARU has been a "golden handshake" for many years for plenty of the higher League officials including some former Presidents like W4RA.  It's no surprise to me that Sumner is among them.  In case you didn't know the ARRL has tried for decades to "suggest" to other countries how to run their amateur radio affairs.  Anyone remember the CRRL?

I wonder if they draw salaries and if so how much?

What nonsense!

73,

Michael, W1RC
Logged

"It is a good thing we don't get the government we pay for."  Will Rogers.
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #551 on: December 07, 2007, 05:01:46 AM »

Well,.. one things for sure, when all your worried about is top hats and titles, it doesn't leave much clarity for the rank and file to work with.

Clarification..? .. a position of authority's damage control.
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #552 on: December 07, 2007, 05:45:43 AM »

I haven't received any "clarification," so he must be taking an awful great deal of care in writing it.

Also, watch for the words "we are committed," a phrase which has come to mean "we don't give a szht."
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #553 on: December 07, 2007, 01:31:25 PM »

ARRL President, W5ZN, has posted a statement on the revised IARU Region 2 band plan on the ARRL web site dated 12/7/07.

To review the complete text, go here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/12/07/100/?nc=1
or here:
http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php/topic,12868.0.html
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #554 on: December 07, 2007, 02:00:50 PM »

Quote
Unlike the US, where the FCC's Part 97 rules regulate the frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service by emission designator, many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation. Because of this, the national Amateur Radio societies in these countries look to a band plan to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences. In such cases, these countries are urged to promote incorporation or recognition of a band plan into their regulations.

So, thanks to this bandplan, there are now a number of countries that cannot run DSB full carrier AM.

Quote
In the United States, however, ARRL's band plans will continue to provide guidance for recommended operating preferences including the 160 meter band plan that was revised in 2001 on the basis of membership input.

If the ARRL sought input on the 160 band plan, why did it not seek input on a IARU-2 plan?  The ARRL is the US representative to the IARU - why would it not consider the wishes of its members?  It should have been patently obvious to the ARRL, based upon the opposition to its redacted petition, that there was a large amount of opposition to such bandplan via bandwidth schemes.

Quote
The band plans provide voluntary guidelines and recommendations for good operating practice that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations.
So anyone violating the banplan does not engage in "good operating practice"?  How does the virtual elimination of full carrier DSB improve operating practice?  Am I a bad operator if I ignore this bandplan?

Quote
The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.

HUH?!?!  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Common roots but unrelated???  C'mon!

Quote
While a number of Amateur Radio organizations and publishers support and agree with the ARRL on the concept of regulation by bandwidth as an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands, ARRL will not be pursuing a rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community.

So this issue is not dead, despite all of the opposition to same.  THe "common roots" cited above as well as the statement that many look towards bandplans for eventual regulation leads one to believe that despite the denial, this is part and parcel to another eventual peteition for regulation by bandwidth.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it ain't a '53 Studebaker.

Quote
ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.

Except in this case.  And by the way, go to hell if you're not a member.

Quote
ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.

Nice caveat here.  "We won't listen to you unless you subscribe to our szhhty magazine".

Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2544

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #555 on: December 07, 2007, 02:36:51 PM »


 this is part and parcel to another eventual peteition for regulation by bandwidth.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it ain't a '53 Studebaker.


Regardless of what the the League might try in the future, it's my opinion that the days of their having persuasive influence at the FCC are done. Over. Toast. The folks at the Commission are pragmatists and they're NOT dumb, either. And they do read the internet. There was and is NO compelling reason or demonstrable benefit to regulation by bandwidth.

IF Newington wants to play leadership role in ham radio, they need to change their ways, open up, and work to achieve consensus. 1959 politics, Chicago-style, doesn't cut it any more.

Quote

Nice caveat here.  "We won't listen to you unless you subscribe to our szhhty magazine".


Since I was licensed in 1965, there have been very few times where my correspondence to League officials (on several subjects)  wasn't replied to in a condescending manner. Same for Wayne Green. I get more honest correspondence from my Congressman.

The public forum that is the internet has changed a few things, hasn't it?
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #556 on: December 07, 2007, 04:19:55 PM »

Quote
Unlike the US, where the FCC's Part 97 rules regulate the frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service by emission designator, many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation. Because of this, the national Amateur Radio societies in these countries look to a band plan to provide guidance for the location of operating preferences. In such cases, these countries are urged to promote incorporation or recognition of a band plan into their regulations.

So, thanks to this bandplan, there are now a number of countries that cannot run DSB full carrier AM.

This is true now even before the new band plan comes into affect. Bermuda max. bandwidth is 2700 Hz and Aruba is 3000 Hz. I believe there are several other countries who also have similar bandwidth numbers.

Quote
Quote
In the United States, however, ARRL's band plans will continue to provide guidance for recommended operating preferences including the 160 meter band plan that was revised in 2001 on the basis of membership input.

If the ARRL sought input on the 160 band plan, why did it not seek input on a IARU-2 plan?  The ARRL is the US representative to the IARU - why would it not consider the wishes of its members?  It should have been patently obvious to the ARRL, based upon the opposition to its redacted petition, that there was a large amount of opposition to such bandplan via bandwidth schemes.

Our FCC rules and regulations preempt any voluntary band plans whether they're domestic or international.

Quote
Quote
The band plans provide voluntary guidelines and recommendations for good operating practice that are intended to assist amateurs in making the most effective use of our limited frequency allocations.
So anyone violating the banplan does not engage in "good operating practice"?  How does the virtual elimination of full carrier DSB improve operating practice?  Am I a bad operator if I ignore this bandplan?

If you visit a country and want to play radio, and their only radio regulation is the IARU Region 2 band plan, then, yes, you are not engaging in "good operating practice" or worse (depending on the country).

Quote
Quote
The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related.

HUH?!?!  This makes no sense whatsoever.  Common roots but unrelated???  C'mon!

common root ~ bandwidth ~ world-wide interest

Quote
Quote
While a number of Amateur Radio organizations and publishers support and agree with the ARRL on the concept of regulation by bandwidth as an essential element to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands, ARRL will not be pursuing a rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community.

So this issue is not dead, despite all of the opposition to same.  THe "common roots" cited above as well as the statement that many look towards bandplans for eventual regulation leads one to believe that despite the denial, this is part and parcel to another eventual peteition for regulation by bandwidth.  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck, it ain't a '53 Studebaker.

When ARRL pulled RM-11306, they said something to the effect that they reserved the right to revisit the issue of regulation by bandwidth in the future. No surprise here; the concept has merit; the initial presentation was flawed.


Quote
Quote
ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service.

Except in this case.  And by the way, go to hell if you're not a member.

Membership has its value.

Quote
Quote
ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. Members may provide input to their elected representative (identified on page 15 of QST), or to our Ad-hoc Band Plan Committee and e-mail address that was established in 2006 at bandplan@arrl.org.

Nice caveat here.  "We won't listen to you unless you subscribe to our szhhty magazine".

There is no magazine subscription but they do have a monthly journal as part of membership.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2544

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #557 on: December 07, 2007, 04:37:55 PM »

Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?

Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #558 on: December 07, 2007, 05:39:13 PM »

Because the ARRL says so!


Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?


Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #559 on: December 07, 2007, 05:59:17 PM »


The ARRL sez:
Quote
One virtue of voluntary band plans is that they are more flexible and can be amended more easily than the FCC rules; writing them into the rules would be counterproductive. As voluntary guidelines, the band plan cannot by definition be "more severe" than regulations; however, if the band plan did not suggest an operating pattern that is a subset of the regulations, it would serve no purpose.

I propose the bandwidth limitations be removed from this “flexible” band plan. While we’re at it, since it is so flexible, and completely voluntary, I recommend that all amateurs in Region 2 ignore it.

The ARRL sez:
Quote
As one of the 39 Member-Societies of IARU Region 2, the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions.

Excellent! This will give them more time to come up with arrogant and condescending replies.
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #560 on: December 07, 2007, 06:54:28 PM »

I really used to look forward to my sending in my dues every year..a little chore that i liked to do...liked the web page for articles that were available to read...monthly rag..Ok i guess..sompin to read on the throne...

Now my Dues come here...at least when sompin is wrong it's wrong...when sompin is right it's right...no collusion at all...everything discussed and all points brought out...

I just don't get it with these people...what part of No don't they understand...it's beyond my very unworthy thought patterns...lol....

Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8112


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #561 on: December 07, 2007, 11:49:01 PM »

Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?
I don't feel that ambitious to go back and highlight all the pluses that regulation by bandwidth can bring for the future of amateur radio. The ARRL's petition, http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf in the "Introduction and Background" section highlights many of them. If you feel real ambitious you can review my comments on the FCC comment page for RM-11306. CQ also had some great ideas regarding this subject in their comments to the FCC on the proposal.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #562 on: December 08, 2007, 03:44:43 AM »

What practical use are subbands other than keeping slopbuckets from swamping the part of the bands used by cw and other similarly narrow band modes?  160 has no subbands at all and everyone seems to get by just fine.

The way I would propose regulation by bandwidth would be to divide the bands into two sections, one restricted to modes with necessary bandwidths narrower than 300~ while the other would allow modes with necessary bandwidths wider than 300~.  One division period.  Nothing more.  No other specified bandwidth limits for any mode.  On 80m, 3500-3600 would be limited to 300~ bandwidth.  On 40, 7000-7050.  On 20, 14000-14100, etc. etc.  Maybe a general statement that no signal should exceed the necessary bandwidth of double sideband AM phone, just to keep someone from occupying the entire  band for one fast scan TV or some kind of spread spectrum digital.

If I read the regulation right, the UK has now purged from its rules all limitations by mode or by bandwidth.  They simply say run anything you want on any frequency but keep the signal within the limits of the amateur  band, and let the amateurs work it out from there.
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
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #563 on: December 08, 2007, 04:44:53 AM »

Now see that Don I like that, "and let the amateurs work it out" see the trust building there. That's what these cats are missing, Have Faith in us not role playing..Believe me you will be told when there's a problem.


This has got me to thinken and has put an idea in the back of my head, it's like what you don't trust the VE program either so now you need to do the thinking for us too, Yup OK Uncle jack wasn't born yesterday Not a problem...
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #564 on: December 08, 2007, 07:12:32 AM »


This is true now even before the new band plan comes into affect. Bermuda max. bandwidth is 2700 Hz and Aruba is 3000 Hz. I believe there are several other countries who also have similar bandwidth numbers.

Now, thanks to this ill-advised fiasco, there will be more.  Please explain to me, Pete, without sidestepping the question, how this advances amateur radio.  If you cannot explain this, then you must have to agree that the whole concept is faulty and should be discarded.



Quote
Our FCC rules and regulations preempt any voluntary band plans whether they're domestic or international.

You keep dredging out this statement as if it is some defense of the plan.  Please explain to me how this bandplan in general and the bandwidtch restrictions in particular are beneficial to US amateurs (let's set aside for a moment the fact that some countries will virtually ban DSB AM as a result of this).


Quote
If you visit a country and want to play radio, and their only radio regulation is the IARU Region 2 band plan, then, yes, you are not engaging in "good operating practice" or worse (depending on the country).

The "good amateur practice" does not distinquish between local regs or not; just THIS bandplan.  Please explain to me how just the practice of using DSB full carrier AM constitutes poor amateur practice when it is not interfering with anyone.



Quote
common root ~ bandwidth ~ world-wide interest

THe "origin" cannot be from "bandwidth" - someone had to have had that idea.  A nebulous entity called "bandwidth" doesn't think for itself nor does it draft IARU bandplans.  *SOMEONE* did it and I believe that's what the "common roots" are referring to.





Quote
When ARRL pulled RM-11306, they said something to the effect that they reserved the right to revisit the issue of regulation by bandwidth in the future. No surprise here; the concept has merit; the initial presentation was flawed.
As was this, which many rightly view as an attempt at an end-run around the FCC towards a treaty which will codify this at the next WRC.


Quote
Membership has its value.

If they proclaim to represent US amateurs and their interests then they should do so, membership aside.  Their website still invites comment to Division Directors on matters of interest and does not disntinguish between members and non-members.  N3LLR graciously replied to me (once) but was pretty bold in stating that he was under no obligation to do so.  I was also provided copies of other correspondence from League personnel who were very denigrating towards me for having the termerity to provide my opinion (which was very respectful).  I requested of N3LLR that, if it were the case that Division Directors need not correspond with non-members that this be clarified on the ARRL website.  It has not been.

I have never been strongly anti_ARRL.  What changed me somehwat were the appalling shennanigans perpetrated by HQ against a candidate for the Atlantic Division.  ANd the nastiness against me and fellow AMers who are bold enough to publically question this (and other) nonsense is appalling and uncalled-for.

Pleae explain to me, Pete, why I should support an organization who embarks upon crusades like this while failing to learn a thing from its recent failed petition?  Why should I *pay* someone to bend me over a barrel???



Quote
There is no magazine subscription but they do have a monthly journal as part of membership.
Grrrrr.....
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Bill, KD0HG
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2544

304-TH - Workin' it


« Reply #565 on: December 08, 2007, 10:25:56 AM »

Pete:

Why do we need regulation by bandwidth?
I don't feel that ambitious to go back and highlight all the pluses that regulation by bandwidth can bring for the future of amateur radio. The ARRL's petition, http://www.remote.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf in the "Introduction and Background" section highlights many of them. If you feel real ambitious you can review my comments on the FCC comment page for RM-11306. CQ also had some great ideas regarding this subject in their comments to the FCC on the proposal.

Pete, the petition is by and large illogical, IMO.

Here's a copy-n-paste statement from it:

" We are in the early stages of a dramatic shift in Amateur operating patterns, especially in the High Frequency (HF) bands. It is impossible to determine now where this shift may lead. "

A *dramatic* shift, that can't be quantified or documented? Because we're only in its early stages?

Sounds heavy, man. Heavy.

Not a single corroborating document to support that assertion. No letters from a WB8FZZ stating, "I want to use V.301 digital mode but I can't because of FCC regulations..". Or (more likely) a letter from Kenwood stating they have developed a new digital gizmo that they want to sell but it can't be used because of QRM from analog stations or because of repressive regulations.

OTOH, the one quantifiable shift in operating that's obvious is the growth in the use of AM.
LOL.

How would League officials and the others know what's going on, anyway? They never seem to get on the air, anyway. I can talk to Rush or Dr. Laura on the air, but we can't engage Rinaldo in a public or private discussion about it?

Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10037



« Reply #566 on: December 08, 2007, 11:20:51 AM »

Now see that Don I like that, "and let the amateurs work it out" see the trust building there. That's what these cats are missing, Have Faith in us not role playing..Believe me you will be told when there's a problem.


This has got me to thinken and has put an idea in the back of my head, it's like what you don't trust the VE program either so now you need to do the thinking for us too, Yup OK Uncle jack wasn't born yesterday Not a problem...

I can't figure what you are getting at.  Translate please.

If I interpreted what I read correctly, that is simply a fact.  Modes of emission and bandwidth in the UK were completely deregulated, so whether they like it or not, they are forced to operate strictly by voluntary band plan.

It works somewhat like that here too, on 160.  But I'm afraid that slopbuckets would over-run the CW operators if 80 were completely deregulated.  If the FCC, in its infinite wisdom decides we need to be regulated by bandwidth, one simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth would be sufficient.  The last thing we  need is subbands and sub-sub bands with 200~, 500~, 1500~, 2700~, 3500~, 6000~ and 9000~ segments spelt out in Part 97.

Not that long ago, I was warm to the idea of completely eliminating subbands altogether as they have already done in Canada, and relying strictly on a voluntary band plan, enforced by the limitations of "good amateur practice". But the recent IARU fiasco has made me think twice about the whole idea.  Who would decide what band plan structure has been "volunteered"? I fear that the IARU fiasco a sample of what would happen. We might end up saddled with a "band plan" that is far worse, particularly for AM, than anything the FCC has ever attempted to come out with.

Still, even after the phone band expansion, our US subband structure, based on a matrix of modes of emission and licence class, is far too complex.

One simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth, is about the only regulation-by-bandwidth scheme I could feel like living with.  That is not to say that I would even advocate that plan.

And what do volunteer examinations have to do with it?
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
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #567 on: December 08, 2007, 11:49:22 AM »

Now see that Don I like that, "and let the amateurs work it out" see the trust building there. That's what these cats are missing, Have Faith in us not role playing..Believe me you will be told when there's a problem.


This has got me to thinken and has put an idea in the back of my head, it's like what you don't trust the VE program either so now you need to do the thinking for us too, Yup OK Uncle jack wasn't born yesterday Not a problem...

I can't figure what you are getting at.  Translate please.

If I interpreted what I read correctly, that is simply a fact.  Modes of emission and bandwidth in the UK were completely deregulated, so whether they like it or not, they are forced to operate strictly by voluntary band plan.

It works somewhat like that here too, on 160.  But I'm afraid that slopbuckets would over-run the CW operators if 80 were completely deregulated.  If the FCC, in its infinite wisdom decides we need to be regulated by bandwidth, one simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth would be sufficient.  The last thing we  need is subbands and sub-sub bands with 200~, 500~, 1500~, 2700~, 3500~, 6000~ and 9000~ segments spelt out in Part 97.

Not that long ago, I was warm to the idea of completely eliminating subbands altogether as they have already done in Canada, and relying strictly on a voluntary band plan, enforced by the limitations of "good amateur practice". But the recent IARU fiasco has made me think twice about the whole idea.  Who would decide what band plan structure has been "volunteered"? I fear that the IARU fiasco a sample of what would happen. We might end up saddled with a "band plan" that is far worse, particularly for AM, than anything the FCC has ever attempted to come out with.

Still, even after the phone band expansion, our US subband structure, based on a matrix of modes of emission and licence class, is far too complex.

One simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth, is about the only regulation-by-bandwidth scheme I could feel like living with.  That is not to say that I would even advocate that plan.

And what do volunteer examinations have to do with it?

Hi Don,


 I was writing and thinking out loud i shouldn't do that i do apologize...I like the idea of Amateurs Policing their own, I think there should be no Bandwidth limitation suggestion at all, each mode to it's own structure in good Amateur practice, but by watching these constant maneuverings of these guys it makes me think they have no faith in the system we have and that would include the testing that's supposed to educate the new ham, now, sure you test you pass, but we'll detail operations and rules you obey...i don't like this...it displays No Trust. to many parallels going on here.
Logged
AF9J
Guest
« Reply #568 on: December 08, 2007, 12:48:11 PM »


One simple division, between <cw bandwidth and >cw bandwidth, is about the only regulation-by-bandwidth scheme I could feel like living with.  That is not to say that I would even advocate that plan.


Man, I don't know about that Don,

If you go to that method, you're opening up a potential QRM can of worms due to the mixing digital modes that would be wider than typical CW bandwidths, but incompatible of mixing with SSB and AM modes.  You don't want to go there.   Modes like PACTOR III (and its infamous Winlink derivative) would be allowed useage up around say 3710, 7290 , etc.  Considering the QRM issues other operators are having with these modes in the automated digital operation subbands, you don't want to spread them.  And all of the strap in the world won't stop them from transmitting.  Half of the time the operators of some of these modes could care less if you e-mail them to cool it.  Some hams have been greeted with nothing but hostility, in their requests to have some of these wideband digital mode users, be a bit more careful of where they transmit.  I dealt with wideband digital mode QRM first hand.  3 weeks in a row, of having a Hellschreiber net I ran QRMed by PACTOR II or III signals, chased us off of a net freq., we'd been on for months.  Operators of these wideband modes, claim to not hear constant carrier, constant amplitude modes like CW, Packet, RTTY, and PSK31.  Wanna bet they'll have an even harder time hearing variable amplitude modes like AM & SSB? 

73 & just my 2 cents worth,
Ellen - AF9J
Logged
w3jn
Johnny Novice
Administrator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4611



« Reply #569 on: December 08, 2007, 06:15:06 PM »


7-I can't help but be impressed by Pete being the near sole defender of the ARRL & IARU in this matter. I don't agree with him BUT I can't help but admire his courage in standing fast in the face of such an assault/barrage.




Indeed!  All discussion was kept civil. 


Good points, Mack, it's obvious that the ARRL isn't going to back down.  However the more people that are aware of this the better.  To quote Emil Faber, the illustrious founder of Faber College: "Knowledge is Good".
Logged

FCC:  "The record is devoid of a demonstrated nexus between Morse code proficiency and on-the-air conduct."
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #570 on: December 08, 2007, 06:36:25 PM »

Yep, a dude named after a pencil.


* tshirt.jpg (10.78 KB, 240x240 - viewed 505 times.)
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #571 on: December 10, 2007, 05:36:31 AM »

KI4SXC in Florida posted the following on another IARU Region 2 discussion thread. Stafford held a ranking IARU position at the time of the Brazil talks. It will have been four months after those talks concluded that we get the "minutes," presumably being carefully written in that time frame.

The minutes of the Region 2 Conference should be available on the Region 2
web site within the next 30 days or so.  www.iaru-r2.org is the URL.

Rod Stafford W6ROD
Logged
K1DEU
Guest
« Reply #572 on: December 11, 2007, 12:31:15 AM »

     Well at least they know many of us are strongly considering not re-newing our forced subscription (to their "for the newbies" QST). Would we ever be allowed to choose QEX instead? sadly likely never...
     

     They are still in the dark, not feeling our spirit about their pompous and dogmatic "from the top down___End of wide bandwidths___ on LF  and  HF___. And their Slow; but sure intent with their "trade Amateur Emergency (in-) Security Communications with Congress___to save and obtain more Wacko small segments like 5 and 10 Megacycles in panic and CW weak signal and digital Jamming QSO's for a few Executive big-shots' personal Fun!

      I wonder if they could internally try a little supposed American "Republic" form of government Huh  Reference   Aristotle, George Washington, Thomas Payne, Ben Franklin and " American President Martin Van Buren "  who nearly saved us from where we are now !  73 on CW,  John, K1DEU  PS      pardon my Humble Opinion !!!
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #573 on: December 11, 2007, 04:39:15 AM »

 Some of the Great Libertarians Knew,...."Knew" what would happen given present day activities, reason why Jefferson said ...they only way it's gona work is if there's a revolution once in awhile...sometimes i wonder about that.

 I fully understand standardization, i understand it's need..the members in the BC industry here Know and understand the need. everybody is on the same page here on this board..we respect the need for things...

 But it's the Politics of this matter that is wrong and the choice that was made.

 and for that there is No defense...none.....
Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 165


« Reply #574 on: December 11, 2007, 09:14:15 AM »


You know, even if one takes the ARRL protestations of innocence at face value, they still have failed to protect the interests of all current US operators and modes in the IARU Region 2 bandplan revision process.  Their vote in favor of the revisions with tight bandwidth limits, and their subsequent claims that we can ignore the plan (until they've had a chance to educate everyone as to its merits?) does not serve us well at all. 

As a member I'm very disappointed in the ARRL management on this issue.

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 [23] 24 ... 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 0.056 seconds with 19 queries.