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

[ka3zlr]

Different audience now gets to consider the mess made in Brazil.

http://www.eham.net/articles/18150

Good Morning Paul, Everyone,

 After reading the comments on that forum I see the age old Legacy mode "differences of Opinion" is alive and well, that is that...I just have one question listening across all the bands in regards to Phone, I don't think i haven't heard at least once in any QSO where the question of "Audio Sound" doesn't come up...I think the "1%" comment is invalid and considering the equipment that is being pumped out today that is addressing "Audio".... "for Phone"...just how are we going to address this growing width problem...interesting...

 Well the figure that has been established by our representatives for world compliance is digging up some of the past grievances so we are coming full circle ..and all thanks to be given to the originators...well done....

 What's Next..?


PS. Paul your writing was Magnificent and your arguments were well seeded..

[W3SLK]

Paul said:

Which one does he work for ? Not that it matters.

Why he was the brain trust behind the Ameritron amps. I often question their workmanship (personally I thought the tuning caps and roller inductors were rather chincey). But people like them.

Steve said:

These so called, weak signal DXers on 160 want every one else in the word to step aside for their little sideshow. Never mind than they represent far less than 1% of active amateur radio operators.

I have first hand experience with that. Last year Joe, N3IBX and myself were near the upper fringe. There was a qso on 1885 and we wanted to discusses some stuff OT from the roundtable. We both monitored 1868 for activity for about 10 min. with nothing heard. About 5 min. into our QSO, we were pummeled by a plethora of sloppbucketeers. So we made mention about the intentional QRM. Later I get an email from the guy stating that he was in QSO with another ham in east Datdere, and I ruined his QSO. To me a freq. not in use is an un-used freq. I don't care where it is located. If someone politely asks me if I would mind moving due to a sched. with another DX station, I'll do that but don't hold the freq. hostage!

[Tom WA3KLR]

I did find a listing of the Board Minutes on the ARRL site, but not under ‘Announcements’.  You have to hit the yellow button ‘ARRL Info’ then hit ‘General Information’ then hit ‘Board Meeting Minutes/Reports’ then click on the meeting minutes desired.

Recent ARRL Minutes.  Notable excerpts (by my opinion) with any relevance to the IARU, IARU 2 band plan, regulation by bandwidth, ARRL board and officer methods of operating (anything to give us insight to future strategy):

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_482.html

# 482 – April 10, 2007.  A 52 minute teleconference, short Minutes, adopted the resolution to withdraw RM-11306.

Notable excerpt –
“Mr. Harrison opened discussion by noting that the public comments filed with the FCC on the ARRL’s “regulation by bandwidth” petition, RM-11306, paint a very confusing picture as to the sentiments of the amateur community. This is the result of many factors, including the ARRL’s filing of an ex parte statement and the subsequent correction of an error in the statement as well as concerns that are not directly related to the concept of regulation by bandwidth itself. He commented that he remains very supportive of the concept of regulation by bandwidth and believes that the majority of the ARRL Board is as well; however, it will be very difficult for the FCC to proceed on the basis of the existing record.”
…
“Mr. Imlay was asked to explain the procedural options that are available to the FCC.”
- - - - -

Board Second Meeting July 20-21, 2007.  Large attendance with wide range of topics.

http://www.arrl.org/announce/board-0707/

Notable excerpts -
“3. Tim Ellam, VE6SH, Vice President of the International Amateur Radio Union, thanked the Board for the invitation to attend and for the support given to IARU.”

“11. At this point President Harrison appointed an ad hoc committee to draft a document concerning proper handling and dissemination of confidential and sensitive information that will be added to the Director’s Workbook. Vice President Craigie, General Counsel Imlay, Director Bellows, and Vice Director Ahrens were appointed to the committee.”

“34. On motion of Mr. Norton, seconded by Mr. Leggette, it was VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors thanks those involved in digital networks that serve ARES, and specifically the Winlink 2000 development team for creation of a system facilitating Amateur Radio’s ability to serve society’s emergency communication needs. The League affirms its desire to work with developers of digital systems including the Winlink 2000 system to improve efficiency, address control issues, and enhance compatibility with other users of the Amateur Radio bands.”
- - - - - -

# 483 – September 27, 2007.  A 60 minute teleconference, concerning the disqualified southwest director candidate. 

http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_483.html

Notable excerpts –

“President Harrison noted that the sole item before the Committee was consideration of an appeal lodged by Carl Gardenias, WU6D, who, though originally found qualified as a candidate in the current election for Southwestern Division Director (which, due to his candidacy, was a contested election), was subsequently declared disqualified by the Ethics and Elections Committee. The action of the Ethics and Elections Committee was taken after evaluation of certain actions and/or inactions of the candidate.”
 - -
“President Harrison next asked Ethics and Elections Committee chair Tom Frenaye to please explain the rationale of that Committee in disqualifying Mr. Gardenias. Mr. Frenaye rendered a complete account…”
- - - - -

# 484 – October 6, 2007.  An 8-hour conference, concerning a broad range of items including the ongoing BPL fight and IARU 2 conference. 
http://www.arrl.org/announce/ec_minutes_484.html

Notable excerpts  –

Under Legal/regulatory action items –
“3.4. The committee discussed briefly the status of efforts to develop a generally acceptable proposal to regulate amateur subbands by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission. While addressing the issues that arise from the introduction of many new digital modes into the HF bands cannot be postponed indefinitely, it is important to develop a consensus in the amateur community before seeking FCC rulemaking again. The committee will not be offering specific recommendations to the Board for consideration at its 2008 Annual Meeting.”

Under -  International matters
“9.1. Those present who attended the IARU Region 2 Conference in Brasilia, September 10-14, reported on their experiences. Mr. Stafford was present in his capacity as President and area Director of Region 2. Mr. Harrison headed the ARRL delegation, chaired the Electoral Committee and served on the Finance Committee. Mrs. Craigie and Mr. Butler served on the Technical/Operational Committee. Mr. Sumner served on the Administrative Committee. Also representing the ARRL, Jon Siverling, WB3ERA served as Secretary of the Administrative Committee and Paul Rinaldo, W4RI was Secretary of the Technical/Operational Committee. Mr. Stafford did not stand for re-election as President. Region 2 Secretary Reinaldo Leandro, YV5AMH was elected President and Ramón Santoyo, XE1KK was elected Secretary. The other officers and Directors of Region 2 were re-elected.”
- - -
“9.4. Mr. Stafford observed that a study of a possible comprehensive restructuring of the IARU is underway. Whether there is a restructuring of the IARU will affect how IARU officers are selected in the future.”
- - -
Under - Other business -
“16.2. Arrangements for the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Board were discussed briefly.”
- - - - - -

The ARRL Annual Meeting of the Board is scheduled for January 2008.

[WA3VJB]

Fascinating.
Nice digging there Tom, and a hearty pat on the back for the effort.

Wouldn't you like to know what the "confidential" stuff is in the Director's workbook? I guess we have to get one of us elected there to blow the cover off.  I suspect the Midwest Division will be in play...

[Pete, WA2CWA]

One needs to read these BoD minutes Executive Committee minutes, and Committee Reports right when they come out verses reading them 6 months later. It helps to cut down on the surprise factor. The Annual Report also has some great info. It also pays to read the minutes and reports from all 3 IARU Regions because often you can get a head's up on what might be considered going forward in your own Region since other Regions may also give presentations.

Another great place to get ARRL monthly activities in a somewhat capsule and sanitized format is from the ARRL's main page. Here's the November monthly activity:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/features/2007/11/30/3/?nc=1

[ka3zlr]

Fascinating.
Nice digging there Tom, and a hearty pat on the back for the effort.

Wouldn't you like to know what the "confidential" stuff is in the Director's workbook? I guess we have to get one of us elected there to blow the cover off.  I suspect the Midwest Division will be in play...

Aye too Paul,

 In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything...In today's state of communications, Real time openness is key and Available now, why shud any operator Have to go through hoops in searching for information regarding any and all state of operations it shud be stated Face open in all manner of communications available, Again Communicators acting as Communicators.

 I don't subscribe to answering to this bureaucracy they haven't the respect to ask first before acting which is gud logic, I've seen first hand what respectful questioning has been answered with, and I personally don't like the Puppet answers.

 At this point my answer to them and their Puppets is "The Amateurs Code" read that an then give me an answer to what is considered Good Amateur practice in Representing Amateurs.

Faces West.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

There is tons of information on past, present, and ongoing  activities on the ARRL site, the weekly ARRL Letter, main page Amateur Radio News, and possibly your Division's web site and/or your monthly Division e-mail newsletter (if your Division does one). Reading this stuff on a regular basis, will keep you well informed. If you wait for someone to bring down a snippet of news to the forum for discussion, by the time you read it, it could already be rolled into a ball of gunk.

Jack said: "In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything."

In every Corporation there are "things" that should be made public for all eyes to see, but like all Corporations, there are some "things" (off the record discussions, proposed ideas among management, financial implications or future financial actions, etc.) that should remain "not for the world to see". It's part of business.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Bad comparison Pete. The ARRL members are not the public, they are part owners of the "company." While I agree, not every conversation should be reported to the members, any and every official conversation, meeting and action, financial or otherwise, should be reported to the members. True transparency will reduce or eliminate the rumors and mistrust the ARRL hierarchy complains to much about.

There is tons of information on past, present, and ongoing  activities on the ARRL site, the weekly ARRL Letter, main page Amateur Radio News, and possibly your Division's web site and/or your monthly Division e-mail newsletter (if your Division does one). Reading this stuff on a regular basis, will keep you well informed. If you wait for someone to bring down a snippet of news to the forum for discussion, by the time you read it, it could already be rolled into a ball of gunk.

Jack said: "In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything."

In every Corporation there are "things" that should be made public for all eyes to see, but like all Corporations, there are some "things" (off the record discussions, proposed ideas among management, financial implications or future financial actions, etc.) that should remain "not for the world to see". It's part of business.

[ka3zlr]

Good Morning,

 Pete you have to understand, I myself and there are others understand one thing: The league has a solution for and continues to produce at will an idea, for a Non-Problem that doesn't exist, when you understand that then you and i will be on equal terms.

Look i'm just an old general that likes weak sig CW once in awhile and i dearly enjoy listening in on well produced AM leave it alone.....the only problem that does exist is personal accountability on the air.

The rules that are in place are fine and in need of no trimming or pruning...be loyal to your people your people will simplify your needs, the technology up and coming is wonderful when needed make room...the answer for their winlink and echo whatever is in line of sight repeatability....simple...


My reasoning is very simple: By burdening the system with more stringent regs it's just adds to the already overly populated radio kops...also everybody is already preparing for 2009, we all know that closed circuit is today's tech, the feed is Sat now it does cost money and we all know the potential of monies that will be generated. Please Keep that business out of our service...

jack KA3ZLR.

[WA3VJB]

Feller named Keith, KB1SF, has posted to one of the discussion threads about the controversial IARU Region 2 band plan, and makes the case, albeit unwittingly, for increased use of AM on HF, so that we are seen as "fully occupying and using the frequencies we've been allocated.." Here is part of his posting:
Just before I stepped down as President of AMSAT-NA, I remember some of our experimenters had proposed placing a wideband (HF to UHF and above) receiver on one of our satellites then under construction. The receiver would be able to listen on any frequency (or series of frequencies) on these bands from Low Earth orbit and would even digitally store what it heard for later download.

Unfortunately, this was all happening at about the same time the ARRL was locked in battle with the “Little LEOs” who had formally requested parts of our 2m and 70 Cm spectrum be re-allocated to the commercial satellite service for their world-wide use.

Needless to say, once the ARRL got wind of what AMSAT was proposing, they had a proverbial "cow". Why? Simply because the downloads from our wideband receiver would show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our Ham bands are NOT being used in an “efficient” manner and that the Little LEO proponents could now use that information against us to argue their case for world-wide sharing (if not re-allocation) of our spectrum! Sadly, based purely on current spectral use, it became painfully clear that our Amateur Radio interests simply wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in such an argument.

Now, while it appears the “Little LEO” threat has gone away (at least for the moment), I think the long-term implications of this issue should be a wake-up call to us all.

Folks, the overriding threat to Amateur Radio’s existence these days has absolutely NOTHING to do with which mode goes where. Rather, our own lack of interest in growing our ranks (and actually fully occupying and using the frequencies we've been allocated) is what will eventually "do us in".

That is, many of us still have licenses, but fewer and fewer of us are regularly operating on the air. And, in the eyes of some VERY well heeled commercial interests (who, by the way, are also listening to us) that makes our bands “ripe for the picking” because they are mostly empty these days. In their eyes, we are sitting on GOBS of commercially valuable spectrum space that (in their for-profit, corporate minds) is being “wasted” on an ever-dwindling bunch of crusty old curmudgeons who remain stuck in the sociological and technological 1950s...that is, people still hell-bent on communicating with each other using "ancient" Morse code and quaint, tube-type radios.

While it’s certainly fun to reminisce about “what was” and argue (ad nauseum) which tiny slice of spectrum gets to be used by whom, the sad truth is that we live in the present, not the past. And, unless we all (yours truly included) begin spending a LOT more time on the air (and less time here chatting on the Internet about how our bands should (or shouldn’t) be carved up among ourselves) I’m afraid much of our spectrum is going to eventually be re-allocated to some other service based on our own benign neglect.

Sadly, when that happens, we’ll have nobody to blame but ourselves.

73,

Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF

[k4kyv]

Somebody will profit greatly from these vacated analog TV frequencies and it's going to be real interesting to see exactly who that might be?

That "somebody" will be the federal government, from the thousands of millions of $$ they will rake in from auctioning off spectrum that isn't theirs to auction off to begin with.  The corporations will pay big bucks for that spectrum, which they will recuperate by increasing the prices of their products, justified as "overhead" expense.  Eventually, those cost increases will filter down to nearly all consumer products.  So the bottom line is that spectrum auctions are, in reality, a new hidden federal tax that everyone will pay, whether or not they directly use the services of the corporations that won the spectrum auctions.

It seems likely that amateurs will fall prey to the old "use it or lose it" rule.

Therefore spectrum conservation and bandwidth limitation could actually hurt us in the long run.  It can be argued that amateurs who tinker with older equipment, still hell-bent on communicating with each other using "ancient" Morse code and quaint, tube-type radios, are at least learning something about the fundamentals of radio.  According to the broadcast industry, there is a dearth of qualified transmitter engineers who are well versed in RF techniques, in addition to present-day "digital" technology.

I suspect, rather than communications using "vintage" technology, it would be idiots like the 3892 and 3978 crew that might convince ITU delegates at the next WARC that amateur radio HF allocations are a waste of valuable spectrum.

However, if you listen between the ham bands, there is even more unused spectrum  sitting idle, except maybe in the SWBC bands.  I have yet to hear anything other than the channelised amateur operation in that "valuable" 60m spectrum.

[WD8BIL]

"160 works" for those who work wider modes with strong signals, and it works exceptionally well for those who like to cause intentional QRM. 


Those damn "wider modes" are the problem.

I wonder if his attitudes about excessive power are the same
 

[Ed/KB1HYS]

He's a Corntester too, so he probably feels that Tetrodes with Handles are OK during certain "Critical Operations"

[ka3zlr]

There is tons of information on past, present, and ongoing  activities on the ARRL site, the weekly ARRL Letter, main page Amateur Radio News, and possibly your Division's web site and/or your monthly Division e-mail newsletter (if your Division does one). Reading this stuff on a regular basis, will keep you well informed. If you wait for someone to bring down a snippet of news to the forum for discussion, by the time you read it, it could already be rolled into a ball of gunk.

Jack said: "In regards to the Service and Membership there shud be None..."Confidential" anything."

In every Corporation there are "things" that should be made public for all eyes to see, but like all Corporations, there are some "things" (off the record discussions, proposed ideas among management, financial implications or future financial actions, etc.) that should remain "not for the world to see". It's part of business.

Pete You see what has happened here, these past posts.

 I understand where your coming from completely, believe me, But I am very deeply angered by what has transpired. Now also i do understand the hand shaking that is taking place and what are some of the possible outcomes for the future. That's fine it's wonderful and take all the spectrum that is going to be needed if we don't we're going to lose it...but not on HF....enough of that, and also the other countries Do need to address their needs in this I understand that too..money Parrot's technology and visa verse and getting them onboard for the future is important, not to negate the very high possible gains to be made..very possible....

 I don't want to lose a buddy over this I really don't and Please tell your buddies..hey once in awhile include us too...that's all anybody asks here.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Good Morning,

 The league has a solution for and continues to produce at will an idea, for a Non-Problem that doesn't exist...

If you're talking Region 2 band plan - All members of the IARU Region 2 members accepted the plan.

If you're talking about "regulation by bandwidth" rolling into FCC rules - No one has submitted any proposal at this time to request that to happen.

The rules that are in place are fine and in need of no trimming or pruning...be loyal to your people your people will simplify your needs, the technology up and coming is wonderful when needed make room...the answer for their winlink and echo whatever is in line of sight repeatability....simple...

My reasoning is very simple: By burdening the system with more stringent regs it's just adds to the already overly populated radio kops...also everybody is already preparing for 2009, we all know that closed circuit is today's tech, the feed is Sat now it does cost money and we all know the potential of monies that will be generated. Please Keep that business out of our service...

jack KA3ZLR.

It's not clear what it is you're trying to tell us here - "the feed is Sat now it does cost money and we all know the potential of monies that will be generated. Please Keep that business out of our service"

What does this have to do with the voluntary Region 2 band plan, the ARRL, or anything amateur radio?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

...but not on HF....enough of that, and also the other countries Do need to address their needs in this I understand that too..money Parrot's technology and visa verse and getting them onboard for the future is important, not to negate the very high possible gains to be made..very possible....

Maybe those "other countries" are really trying to get U. S. amateurs on board for the future since radio waves generally don't stop at the borders.

[ka3zlr]

I'm just not convinced, Pete,

 Knowing By Past Practice, actions of the league, i question this choice of Bandwidth for the agreement..OK you say maybe bring US up to standards, ok fine, i say there are those that have little concern for Phone..we will see But I'm not convinced by being told to disregard it...it places a question in the minds of every operator...we'll see what the future brings...I'm not worried about it as long as there's CW I'm losing no sleep.. I question the Motive that's all...I posted several ideas to bring your thoughts out I understand where your coming from, I understand the business aspect...But I also understand what Standardization brings..

Standing by to see what the Future holds...

 

 

[Tom WA3KLR]

I was thinking a couple weeks ago amazingly how little do we hear let alone work, let alone butt heads with other stations in Region 2, or Region 3 and 1 (except for Canada)?  Pete will talk about 20 meters, etcetera.  Yes, just the SSB DX’ers butting heads in a small segment.  So why punish AM’ers?

(By the way, remember that SSB is a half-assed AM signal, HI.)

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I was thinking a couple weeks ago amazingly how little do we hear let alone work, let alone butt heads with other stations in Region 2, or Region 3 and 1 (except for Canada)?  Pete will talk about 20 meters, etcetera.  Yes, just the SSB DX’ers butting heads in a small segment.  So why punish AM’ers?

Don't know where you're listening, but during the evening hours, I hear a number of Spanish speaking stations in QSO, outside the DX window, on 75 meters. Hear a number of them on 40 too. Never spent the time to check if the contacts were domestic/domestic, domestic/international, or international/international. Then, there's also the weak signal stuff and probably also some digital-type stuff in there too.

(By the way, remember that SSB is a half-assed AM signal, HI.)

And a sidebander might perceive that it takes an AM'er twice the number of sidebands to get any intelligence across. It's all in the mind of the "mode operator".

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

You can hear QSOs of many different languages on 80 meters at night. QSOs taking place and butting heads with US/Region 2 stations are two different things.

I was thinking a couple weeks ago amazingly how little do we hear let alone work, let alone butt heads with other stations in Region 2, or Region 3 and 1 (except for Canada)?  Pete will talk about 20 meters, etcetera.  Yes, just the SSB DX’ers butting heads in a small segment.  So why punish AM’ers?

Don't know where you're listening, but during the evening hours, I hear a number of Spanish speaking stations in QSO, outside the DX window, on 75 meters. Hear a number of them on 40 too. Never spent the time to check if the contacts were domestic/domestic, domestic/international, or international/international. Then, there's also the weak signal stuff and probably also some digital-type stuff in there too.

(By the way, remember that SSB is a half-assed AM signal, HI.)

And a sidebander might perceive that it takes an AM'er twice the number of sidebands to get any intelligence across. It's all in the mind of the "mode operator".

[Tom WA3KLR]

Yes Pete, you can hear'em if you listen for them, but were they causing interference to US or vice versa?

[k4kyv]

Maybe those "other countries" are really trying to get U. S. amateurs on board for the future since radio waves generally don't stop at the borders.

How often do the high frequency audio sideband products  of US AM phone stations, or ESSB stations, cause any problem in Region 1 or Region 3 phone stations?  The guys in Europe or Australia/NZ trying to work US AM DX have to contend with extremely pissweak signals 99% of the time.  It is a non-issue.  Splatter from AM overmodulation, or overdriving or parasitics in a SSB leenyar  may be a different matter, but even that would likely cause a problem only to other stations in North America. 

The enumerated bandwidth figures should be eliminated from the band plans in all regions, and replaced with a "minimum bandwidth" clause similar to what already exists in US Part 97.

It would be easy enough to list band segments by emission type for modes already in use, and then in addition, specify limitations on necessary bandwidths for "other" modes not included on the list.  Even better than enumerated bandwiths for "other" modes would be specifications "not to exceed the bandwidths of" specific existing modes, including CW, RTTY, SSB and AM.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

The enumerated bandwidth figures should be eliminated from the band plans in all regions, and replaced with a "minimum bandwidth" clause similar to what already exists in US Part 97.

It would be easy enough to list band segments by emission type for modes already in use, and then in addition, specify limitations on necessary bandwidths for "other" modes not included on the list.  Even better than enumerated bandwiths for "other" modes would be specifications "not to exceed the bandwidths of" specific existing modes, including CW, RTTY, SSB and AM.

I bet you might be able to get ARRL to agree on your proposal, if the necessary bandwidth "number" was also listed for the more common modes already in general use. The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.

[WA3VJB]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Dec 18, 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: Ad Hoc Region 2 HF panel
To: "Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ"
Cc: "Mark A. Weiss"


Dave,

I just had a disappointing conversation with Mark Weiss, who led the
ARRL's ad hoc panel on Region 2 HF planning ahead of the talks in
Brazil.

He earlier was willing to describe for me how the panel sorted out
conflicts over frequency use, but had not replied to my follow up
question regarding enumerated bandwidths.

Tonight, he said "candidly, I don't really feel comfortable discussing
this," saying he felt as if he were being cross-examined. His career
as a judge may have sensitized him to direct questioning, and my
career as a reporter certainly makes my questions concise.

Can you help shed light on the basis for Region 1's use of enumerated
bandwidths, that Weiss says was indeed considered as they concluded
such numbers could be adapted for use in Region 2? I would be happy if
you could simply authorize him to discuss his work more fully.

Thanks,

Paul

[w3jn]

I bet you might be able to get ARRL to agree on your proposal, if the necessary bandwidth "number" was also listed for the more common modes already in general use. The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.

Nobody has EVER been able to explain to me how this "number" is calculated, figured, ciphered, measured, and most importantly, understood by your typical Hammy Hambone.  Until that happens, this whole bandplan thing (as well as pet ARRL regulation by bandwidth proposals - past, present, and/or future) is a worthless exercise.