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

[ka3zlr]

Right, an often thought of Idea for a Problem that doesn't Exist.

I never understood that.


Why does everything Have to be Micro-Regulated...

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The question then becomes who or what decides what is the minimum necessary bandwidth for communications within the amateur bands for any particular mode.

Who decides now? Once again, it's a solution without a problem.

Tonight, he said "candidly, I don't really feel comfortable discussing
this," saying he felt as if he were being cross-examined.

What a whiner. It's not a court, he didn't take an oath and no one will go to jail. These people will say anything to avoid answering legitimate questions. How sad. I thought we were dealing with adults.

[WA3VJB]

But it can be kinda scary.

Weiss also said the panel considered using generalized references instead of specific numbers, but could not recall why numbers, not characterizations, won their recommendation.

"Most of our work was early in the year, last year," he said, "I don't remember."

[ka3zlr]

Well, Well, Well, Well,

A previous board member decides to step up to the plate...interesting..."who stands to gain and who stands to lose"...the age old strife we seek..."carefully Crafted Plan"..onto.. "the league knows which way the regulatory winds are blowing".....and finally...."it convened an outside committee of volunteer Experts"

 What is the response....All anybody ever asked was a "Chance" to take part and provide "Input" to the leagues considerations..............This is a Democracy we live in i believe.

 and the modal war continues....

 Dependency on the actions of a few who state representation of the mass is futile at best when consideration is only given to Closed proceedings...


How I would like to debate that gentleman on the flow of logic...Control the flow control the logic...just passing traffic.................

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

If he can't remember, it must not be that important. I'm sure they will move to strike the numbers next time.

[k4kyv]

But it can be kinda scary.

Weiss also said the panel considered using generalized references instead of specific numbers, but could not recall why numbers, not characterizations, won their recommendation.

"Most of our work was early in the year, last year," he said, "I don't remember."

It's amusing to see people in positions of public trust develop selective amnesia when put on the spot.  Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzales... so the Weiss fellow, a former judge, is not surprising.  Maybe something about the workings of bureaucracy induces dementia.  Bizarre.

[Ed/KB1HYS]

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.

Ok, why not actually write Don's Idea up (with input of course) and submit our own proposal to the FCC (skip the ARRL angle, as I doubt they would listen).

 Write a "Band Width" reg that we can live with, that actualy makes sense,  and try to get it passed/accepted.  There is a LOT of smart folks who post here, so this could work.  Look at all the attention this thread has gotten.  I bet if we went to the other folks with issues with the bandwidth limitations (the PSK and other digi-modes that winlink trashes, and the ESSB guys) and got them on board early we could make it work.

It could be a "Pre-emptive Strike" to save us from some other folks Big Ideas...

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I like the one we already have.

97.307(a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

[Tom WA3KLR]

97.307(a) - Is good for me too.  This great law is Kryptonite to the ARRL apparently.

[k4kyv]

Write a "Band Width" reg that we can live with, that actualy makes sense,  and try to get it passed/accepted.  There is a LOT of smart folks who post here, so this could work.  Look at all the attention this thread has gotten.  I bet if we went to the other folks with issues with the bandwidth limitations (the PSK and other digi-modes that winlink trashes, and the ESSB guys) and got them on board early we could make it work.

It could be a "Pre-emptive Strike" to save us from some other folks Big Ideas...

I like the one we already have.

97.307(a)

No amateur station transmission shall occupy more bandwidth than necessary for the information rate and emission type being transmitted, in accordance with good amateur practice.

The problem I see with  that is that we just might get what we asked for, but only after the FCC, in its infinite wisdom, has added its own "improvements" to the petition.

A good example of that is incentive licensing.  What the ARRL actually proposed circa 1963 was to return to the old classA/classB licensing system that existed before the mother of all "restructuring" acts, adopted in the early 50's, creating the Novice and Extra class, and granting Generals and above full amateur privileges.  With the explosive growth of amateur ranks in the 50's and early 60's, the increasing trend towards factory built rigs, and a perceived degradation of technical and operating skills, many amateurs including certain League officials thought that elimination of the class A restricted phone bands had been a mistake, and the incentive licensing petition was a request to bring it back.

This ignited a great debate within the amateur community that at times turned downright nasty, while at the same time, the great AM/SSB wars were fully raging.  The FCC sat on the petition for several years before adopting their "compromise" which didn't really please anyone, either the pro- and anti- people who had responded to the League petition.  Particularly egregious was the error the FCC made in not grandfathering existing Generals, thus taking away operating privileges that the majority of licensees already held.  The League got more than it bargained for, and to this day has never recovered from that mistake, but the FCC shares at least 50% of the blame for the fiasco that resulted.

[WA3VJB]

Waiting for an answer.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Dec 19, 2007
Subject: Region 2 band plan
To: "Leandro, Reinaldo (IARU)"

Reinaldo,

Sorry to have to come to you again for information, but the latest
question has to do with the planning ahead of the Brazil conference.
I at first thought the committee whose members did this advance work
was an ARRL function, but I was corrected by Dave Sumner that it
actually was an IARU committee.

That makes the question something I hope you can answer.

Below is my note to Dave.

Could you respond to me?

I also would be interested in learning if and when the details of the
Brazil Region 2 deliberations will be published or otherwise available
to me for review.

Thanks,

Paul WA3VJB
mobile xxx xxx 3885

~~~~~~

I just had a disappointing conversation with Mark Weiss,

[ka3zlr]

After considerable reading of other forums,

This whole affair is a disappointment, i seriously doubt that anyone will be found to step forward. I'll never understand why "what is necessary and what isn't necessary" isn't defined and acted on without prejudice, then again to be part of the club is to keep your tongue to keep your Hat i would assume.

I'm still just a little short on one thought, the league promotes MFG equipment for sale, this equipment comes with adjustable bandwidth, type equipment is acceptable under FCC type acceptance..but the continual notion of a "Needed" limitation warrants an aggravating figure for standardization.

How much more two sided does it need to be...interesting.....

[Jim KF2SY]

Hmmmmm...
Me thinks somehow the IBOC (KAOS) gangsters could be behind this whole thang...

Agent 99

[WD8BIL]

"That's terrible Chief. If IBOC is allowed to continue it will threaten the whole world."

Chief: " Your right, Max."
Max: "Just one thing I don't understand, Chief."
Chief:" What's that ?"
Max: " Just what is IBOC anyway ? "

[Jim KF2SY]

Yep.
If you take letters from IBOC, ARRL, IARU and KAOS...
you get....
BLACK HELICOPTER
at least...

Agent  86


----Wishing you all the Merriest of Holidaze----

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

 

[ka3zlr]

LOL..Gee Gads Gangster Spam....LOL...........................

[stansub]

Seems that 6kc bandwidth is reasonable?  If the AM or DSB signal is generated with a transmitter that has filters to limit the banwidth, then 6khz may be accomplished. For the amateurs using Home Made and/or converted AM Broadcast transmitters, could filters be installed to limit the bandwidth?

I hear some very good AM generated from late model transceivers and amplified. Their bandwidth is narrow, the audio good, not "East Coast Modulation", but HiFi enough for the Ham Bands.

I know that there has and will always be some problems with SSB and AM operators. What will the SSB people do when all communications go to a digital mode? 

Any chance that any plan will work for all amateurs?

Stan

[WA3VJB]

Well not "all" amateurs, Stan.
No such plan could be crafted.

The use of specific bandwidth numbers has not been shown as a potentially better way to place modes/activities on the bands.

There has been no problem currently identified that would be improved or resolved by a bandwidth-based coordination scheme.

So it's not the numbers, it is the concept that dooms such a plan.

[wd8das]

Stan wrote:

>Seems that 6kc bandwidth is reasonable? 

Widening the bandwidth numbers would reduce the pressure, but is not really the answer.  Then you have to define the shape of the response, and lay-out a "mask" into which the signal must fit, or be out of the specification. 

And since 95% of the hams won't be able to measure it properly anyhow, this will surely lead to lots of on-air and off-air finger pointing and arguing. 

And why go to this trouble anyway?  I've heard one reason expressed: the "bands are too crowded and we need to make sure no one is 'too wide' and not taking more than their fair share."  This is just not so - in my experience the bands are getting less and less crowded every day.  And that is a matter of concern for other reasons, but it is certainly not a reason we must all "go narrow."

Steve WD8DAS

[k4kyv]

And since 95% of the hams won't be able to measure (bandwidth) properly anyhow...

Just like p.e.p.  95% of hams wouldn't even be able to describe in words exactly what it is, let alone properly measure it.

I recently overheard some re-tard on SSB, complaining about "wide" AM signals, tell his buddies about how the "absolutely narrowest" AM signal he has ever monitored on his ricebox was clearly audible as he tuned through at least 11 kc/s according to his digital readout.  I have had numerous complaints over the years about my carrier being wide - "you can hear the heterodyne squeal over about 4 kc/s on the dial".  They can't comprehend the fact that the apparent width of a signal on a receiver is the sum of the width of the receiver pass-band plus the bandwidth of the signal, and that even the best selectivity filters have some slope at the edge of the pass-band. That "11 kc wide" AM signal was probably more like 7 kc/s wide in real bandwidth.

Apparently they never bother to check out the apparent bandwidths of SSB signals.  That's not what they want to complain about.

If a numerical bandwidth limit, no matter how generous for AM, were ever enacted, we would have to constantly contend with wannabe "radio cops" and cry babies lacking a clue of what they were talking about.

[Tom WA3KLR]

What bands are too crowded?

[ka3zlr]

Seems that 6kc bandwidth is reasonable?  If the AM or DSB signal is generated with a transmitter that has filters to limit the banwidth, then 6khz may be accomplished. For the amateurs using Home Made and/or converted AM Broadcast transmitters, could filters be installed to limit the bandwidth?

I hear some very good AM generated from late model transceivers and amplified. Their bandwidth is narrow, the audio good, not "East Coast Modulation", but HiFi enough for the Ham Bands.

I know that there has and will always be some problems with SSB and AM operators. What will the SSB people do when all communications go to a digital mode? 

Any chance that any plan will work for all amateurs?

Stan

 Hi Stan,

 Now see you just mentioned a problem, there will always be some head banging..if some people would learn to stay out of a guys bandpass,, then..No Problem..Knowing Full well what AM does take for room, add a coupla KC's for space then whoola...

 But today there are some ops that feel OK I'll move in just above or below a coupla Kc's from center slot and sit an Complain...Now there's a problem.. what is and what isn't perceived as a problem as apposed to what is acted on in causing a problem...

 Obviously when an AM op comes on, and as most do from my observations they take great interest in space...before firing, I've watched this happen many times..

 Now I'm putting my Call on the line here for all this, and the answer isn't to be found in laying down more rules, no, actually it is in operator presence and actions taken on Band with ones own equipment...learn your receiver, learn what is and isn't possible, now I'm not directing this directly at you or anyone present here but it's getting at the truth...that's important, I haven't heard AM all the way up and down 80 meters in a long time, or any band for that matter,..Now everybody has to take a turn and not everyday is it loaded up with AM...space is at a premium, I agree, but operator practice is in question here and that is the situation to be looked at.


 I also feel that some of these net practices need a good looking over and the frequency squatting needs some attending to... maybe a time limit..[[add edit( at premium operating hours)]]..would be behooving in some of these matters....you have x amount of time get your work done and then move on...it gives way for the next guy....just a thought I've been kicking around to relieve some tension....

my very best 73 om jack ka3zlr.

[k4kyv]

The last thing we need as a legal "time limit" for QSO's.  I often, particularly late at night, engage in QSO's that run for hours.  We just need to remain aware of our own channel width and consider adjacent frequency QSO's already in progress when we fire up.  No-one is guaranteed a clear channel.  Amateur radio operates on an interference-expected basis.

Part 97 defines this as "good amateur practice".  That's all the regulation we need.

[ka3zlr]

The last thing we need as a legal "time limit" for QSO's.  I often, particularly late at night, engage in QSO's that run for hours.  We just need to remain aware of our own channel width and consider adjacent frequency QSO's already in progress when we fire up.  No-one is guaranteed a clear channel.  Amateur radio operates on an interference-expected basis.

Part 97 defines this as "good amateur practice".  That's all the regulation we need.

To be added into Good Amateur practice Donny.. not a rule....at premium operating hours....when does most of the head bashing happen...Prime time...we are at what part of the cycle...bottom...logically looking at it... it is time sensitive...later on at night...that's different...it's better than 2.7Kc law on demand...