EDITORIAL: Please, make it stop!

[KA1ZGC]

From an AM QSO on 1880 last night:

"Well, if the IARU makes a bandplan recommendation to the ITU and the ITU adopts it, the FCC will have to go along, they'll have no choice!! They'll have to make AM illegal!!"

That pretty well sums up what bugs me about this whole War-of-the-Worlds-style paranoia: too many people are hearing second- or third-hand information that was based on half-truths to begin with, and assuming everything they've heard is 100% on-the-money.

Two half-truths do not make a whole truth. 1/2 X 1/2 = 1/4. The more inaccurate statements get strung together, the more exponentially inaccurate the finished product becomes.

Let's consider some cold, hard facts for a few minutes:

• There is no World Government.
• The ITU is not the FCC of this nonexistant World Government.
• The FCC is not required to adopt anything the ITU adopts.
• The FCC has only ever adopted ITU recommendations after long, drawn out rulemaking procedures, which include ample time for comments to be filed by the public.
• Even the ITU recommendations the FCC did eventually adopt were ones they considered to make some amount of sense, and didn't increase their draw upon tax dollars.
• If the FCC doesn't adopt an ITU resolution, ITU tanks and infantry will not come rolling up on our borders.
• The FCC is required by Congress to always act in accordance with the public interest.
• Accordingly, the FCC has repeatedly and consistently refused to adopt any regulations that will require them to invest any money in more equipment or manpower for enforcement purposes, as that increases their draw on the general public's tax dollars, which is not in the public interest, and they've said so in official rulings a thousand times by now.
• The sky is not falling.
• The Martians are not invading.

These are not opinions, not speculation, not conjecture, but pure, simple facts.

For all these reasons and more:

• The bandwidth restriction petition was denied, because it would require more and/or stricter enforcement by the FCC itself.
• The "mandatory voluntary bandplans" petition was denied, because it too would require more and/or stricter enforcement by the FCC itself.
• Any attempt to have either bandwidth restriction or bandplan enforcement written into the FCC's regulations will be denied, because it would require more and/or stricter enforcement by the FCC itself.

I'm glad that people are concerned for their hobby, but so many people are running scared based on too many snippets of information that are either incomplete, inaccurate, or just plain wrong to start with; then gluing them all together to come up with a picture that is so far removed from the way things work in Gettysburg, without ever once reading one single past FCC ruling on any of these topics, of which there have been many.

Rather than reading IARU bandplans, emails from Dave Sumner, or threads about how the world as we know it is coming to an end; try reading one of the many rulings by the FCC on every past attempt to get bandwidth restriction or bandplan enforcement codified, read why they were all categorically denied, then grab your dictionary and read the definition of the word "precedent".

People have a valid reason to be concerned about this, but the controversy has been so overblown at this point that altogether too many people are getting their story completely backwards. There will be no legal backlash from any of this, I assure you; and whatever backlash we may get from mis-informned hams telling us AM was made illegal when it wasn't would never have happened if things hadn't got blown out to this extent.

Like many self-conceiving controversies in this society, the fallout from the level of controversy is far more damaging than the subject of the controversy itself.

I, for one, can't wait until Jan. 1, 2008, when everyone wakes up in the morning and realizes the sun still rose that day, the sky didn't fall, the Martians didn't invade, Joan Crawford didn't rise from the grave, AM wasn't outlawed, and nobody's bandplan became the word of law.

Until then, I hope we all have a good holiday season, and a Happy New Year.

--Thom
Killer Album One Zappa's Greatest Compositions

[KF1Z]

Y2K

[Tom WA3KLR]

The objections to the new IARU Region 2 Band Plan in regards to the reduced AM has been registered at this point.  The new plan did not just blow past as “accepted" with complacency and a resulting precedence setting as some may have hoped for.  We are on record now for this skirmish and the skirmish is over.  So as Tom says I think we can cool down for a while.  Be on guard though.  Remember that we are still waiting for the IARU Region 2 Minutes and Resolutions from September.

Happy Holidays.  See you on AM!

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Good points. Just don't get over blown in your reaction to those who are getting overblown in their reaction to the overblown IARU plan.

The FCC is required by Congress to always act in accordance with the public interest.

Just what is public interest in any particular situation is easily debatable, even by reasonable people who don't think Martians are invading. Further, what is in accordance with public interest does not necessarily align with what is best for amateur radio. Once again, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on specifics (e.g. broad band over power line).

Accordingly, the FCC has repeatedly and consistently refused to adopt any regulations that will require them to invest any money in more equipment or manpower for enforcement purposes, as that increases their draw on the general public's tax dollars, which is not in the public interest, and they've said so in official rulings a thousand times by now.

This is true most recently, but hasn't always been true and won't necessarily be true in the future.

Personally, I think all the fall out is good. It keeps the ARRL and the IARU on their toes. Power to the people and I'm down for the struggle.

[ka3zlr]

I agree, time for quiet thought on this..but i was upset as others..quite Shocked...I've been away for how long and I walk right back into where we left off with the last debacle...  that was how many years ago...this is getting tiring..

But i do wonder, the gain, why and for what reason... I'm starting to develop a thought on the opening of all Emission characteristics in lue of the newer modes in recognition of course, but not necessarily the elimination of anything but a question for "Cause" to do so why else such a dramatic limitation dropped on the ground level but to be ignored...the continual "Don't worry about it" routine.



interesting food for thought...speculation of course...

[w3jn]

If the US Government signs an ITU treaty, and that treaty is ratified (there are at least 4 different ways a treaty can be ratified, and *generally* administrative regulations such as this don't need to be ratified by Congress) it would have the force of regulation.  THe FCC, while many times a participant in ITU conventions, is *not* the US Government's representative to the ITU.  That would come under the Department of State's purvey.

Thom, the FCC has no choice whether to adopt an ITU regulation or not.  That decision is made at higher levels in the government.  Please cite instances where the FCC has adopted ITU regs *only* after a comment process.  I am not saying there are not any, I'm saying I don't know of any. 

I believe, and I may be wrong, that dropping the CW requirement was done via the treaty process and not via a normal FCC rulemaking process.  I don't recall any comment period on that one.

[KA1ZGC]

Whew, what a relief! I thought for sure I'd bring the wrath of the AM Community down on me for that one!  

If the ITU were to adopt & approve the IARU Region 2 bandplan as part of it's International Rules & Regs and the U.S. Congress approved it also, then it would be handed to the FCC for enforcement. There would not be ANY RM action involved, it's a mandate from Congress to the FCC at that time. No comment filing involved, it's just a done deal, period.

I'm not aware of any ITU resolutions ever mandated down unto the FCC by Congress. Congress created the FCC so they wouldn't have to hurt their little heads thinking about such issues. I doubt Congress would be any more interested in micro-managing the FCC than they are in micro-managing NOAA. Besides, they're way too busy renaming federal buildings and shooting at each other across the aisle for ironing out the details of anything that they created a federal agency to deal with decades ago.

As far as the ITU's connection to the U.N., we've told the U.N. where to stick it already, I doubt we'd change our minds over something 95% of the population couldn't care less about.

Last I checked, laws passed by Congress aren't done so in secret. Their docket is public information.

The objections to the new IARU Region 2 Band Plan in regards to the reduced AM has been registered at this point.  The new plan did not just blow past as “accepted" with complacency and a resulting precedence setting as some may have hoped for.  We are on record now for this skirmish and the skirmish is over.

...and these are all good things.

Good points. Just don't get over blown in your reaction to those who are getting overblown in their reaction to the overblown IARU plan.

That's why I posted here, Steve. It was either that or throw my receiver out the window in frustration.

The FCC is required by Congress to always act in accordance with the public interest.

Just what is public interest in any particular situation is easily debatable, even by reasonable people who don't think Martians are invading. Further, what is in accordance with public interest does not necessarily align with what is best for amateur radio. Once again, reasonable people can reasonably disagree on specifics (e.g. broad band over power line).

All true, but spending more tax dollars to create and then enforce regulations that have already been deemed as unnecessary and counterproductive is a scenario that couldn't possibly be considered as being in the public interest.

Passing regulations that are in direct contradiction to the Americans With Disabilities Act is totally against the public interest, any reasonable person will agree without debate.

Does the public care about our bandwidth? Nope. Is the public getting sick of the way their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent? You betcha! There's another public interest most people will agree with.

My money is still (and will always be) on the FCC having no interest in getting in the middle of our petty squabbles.

Accordingly, the FCC has repeatedly and consistently refused to adopt any regulations that will require them to invest any money in more equipment or manpower for enforcement purposes, as that increases their draw on the general public's tax dollars, which is not in the public interest, and they've said so in official rulings a thousand times by now.

This is true most recently, but hasn't always been true and won't necessarily be true in the future.

We're not living in the future, we're living in the "here" and "now", and that's where our focus should be. Frankly, I don't see many likely scenarios where the FCC is going to turn about-face and start re-regulating a service they've been de-regulating for years and years.

Personally, I think all the fall out is good.

Right up until we start getting harassed by hoards of misinformed hams after January 1st because they're laboring under the false impression that anything wider than a given bandwidth is "illegal".

The fallout is good when the information is accurate. The Grapevine Effect has seen to it that a whole lot of people have the wrong idea about what is happening, how things happen, and how they've happened a thousand times before with no ill effect. This will, unfortunately have negative side effects for quite some time that never would have come about if everyone had just ignored the IARU bandplan, the way we always have.

All good point, guys, and I'm glad to see I wasn't being mis-interpereted.

Hoppy Hallidays, all!

--Thom
Kraft Advertisement One Zesty Grated Cheese

[KA1ZGC]

If the US Government signs an ITU treaty, and that treaty is ratified (there are at least 4 different ways a treaty can be ratified, and *generally* administrative regulations such as this don't need to be ratified by Congress) it would have the force of regulation.

Cart before the horse, John. The ITU would first have to want to take an IARU bandplan and make it an ITU resolution, and what would they stand to gain by doing so? We're nowhere near that happening. When we are, I'll yawn a bit more carefully.

I'll have to go look it up, but I know there are plenty of ITU resolutions that we have not adopted.

The code requirement became a voluntary treaty item, along with many other things.

What is the penalty if we don't adopt an ITU resolution? Yeah, that's what I thought, same as it is for all the UN resolutions that many contries (including ours) completely ignore: nothing whatsoever.

Like I said, ITU tanks and infantry won't be lining up at our borders.

--Thom
Killer Aircraft One Zeppelin Goes Crash

[w3jn]

Congress doesn't need to ratify *all* treaties.  They can be ratified -by Congress, the President, or a combination:

United States law
  Main article: Foreign policy law of the United States
In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal
sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls
treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive
agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally
treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the
perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily
concerning their method of ratification. Where treaties require advice and
consent by 2/3rds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed
by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the
authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than
additional treaties or protocols. And finally, Congressional executive
agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate,
either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.

Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement
rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of
executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal
treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain Congressional
support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing
legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose
long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.

Here's the backgrounder for the recent WRC conference in Geneva:
http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2007/1022WRCBackground.html



The ITU treaties can be found (brief description) in this document
http://www.state.gov/documents/treaties/66288.pdf

starting at page 534.

[w3jn]

Cart before the horse, John. The ITU would first have to want to take an IARU bandplan and make it an ITU resolution, and what would they stand to gain by doing so? We're nowhere near that happening. When we are, I'll yawn a bit more carefully.

I'll have to go look it up, but I know there are plenty of ITU resolutions that we have not adopted.

The code requirement became a voluntary treaty item, along with many other things.

What is the penalty if we don't adopt an ITU resolution? Yeah, that's what I thought, same as it is for all the UN resolutions that many contries (including ours) completely ignore: nothing whatsoever.

Like I said, ITU tanks and infantry won't be lining up at our borders.

--Thom
Killer Aircraft One Zeppelin Goes Crash

It could very well become a reg if adopted as part of a larger package that the US Government signs.  One raison d'etre for the IARU is to represent amateur radio issues to the ITU.  Hence my concern on this, Thom.

[k4kyv]

The FCC complied with the ITU treaty agreement regarding the code test for HF.  They wanted to do away with it years ago, but were constrained over the international requirement, so they did the next-best thing, that is to reduce the test to 5 wpm.

It didn't take them long to do away with it altogether once the treaty requirement was deleted.

I doubt that the ITU would ever get involved in making AM illegal on the ham bands.  It might occur sometime in our "digital" future, with AM and other analogue modes declared illegal for all services, including broadcasting, much in the manner of spark, but I think that is a bit far-fetched for now. 

The ITU might go along with an amateur radio bandwidth limit, that would have a similar status to the defunct code requirement, but I don't think that's anything to lose sleep over right now.

The main concern right now is misinterpretation that will inevitably cause some amateurs to believe that AM has been outlawed.  After all, it says so on the internet.  Just read the published band plan.

I recall a similar situation when the FCC, years ago, issued a statement in some rulemaking R&O that it was "strongly recommended that full carrier double sideband be used only in emergercies".  Several times I had slopbucketeers break into my QSO and inform me "don't you know that AM is illegal except during cases of emergency?"

An of course this may set the stage for a renewed lobbying effort to have AM deleted or severely restricted in the ham bands.  We've been having to defend our position ever since the early 70's.  To that, I would like to plead to "make it stop".

[KA1ZGC]

Great, a civics debate. Just what we need.

John: if I'm wrong about the ITU, then I'm wrong, okay? You work for the State Department, so you can tell us how treaties work.

I know for a fact that NO IARU bandplan has ever become the word of law in this country, which means one of the following must true:

• The ITU has never cared about enforcing an IARU bandplan
• This contry has never cared about obeying any such enforcement

Pick whichever one helps you sleep at night.

Either way, my feelings on the matter won't change.

--Thom
Kilowatt Amplifier One Zero Grid Current

[w3jn]

THom, I'm not trying to rub your face in anything, just trying sort out the facts.  Don't forget I once *tried* to save you one time from a vicious sunburn 

You are correct that no IARU bandplan has ever been the law, but then there has never been a confluence of events quite like this before either - ARRL failed BW petition, 2 IARU regions adopting bandwidth-focused bandplans... and a WRC coming up in 2011.

[K6JEK]

Y2K

BEGIN TANGENT
{
Aw shucks. Folks seem to think that things went fine on January 1, 2000 because the whole thing was just a fig newton. In fact, a whole lot of people and I mean thousands busted their butts to fix things. Otherwise lots of things would have gone wrong. Maybe the earth would not have reversed rotation or flipped on its head but things would have gone wrong.  I was running one of those software groups. What a pain that was.

All that Y2K work greased the skids for outsourcing engineering jobs. Faced with an overwhelming amount of pretty routine work, many companies  turned to Wipro, an Indian outsourcing company, and others to pick up the slack. They did. They got bigger.  They got better. They made connections. After that, everything that wasn't nailed down moved overseas, to India and now to China. The www enables this outsourcing.

I read a really good article on this but gosh, I can't remember where.
}
END TANGENT

Jon

[Pete, WA2CWA]

THom, I'm not trying to rub your face in anything, just trying sort out the facts.  Don't forget I once *tried* to save you one time from a vicious sunburn 

You are correct that no IARU bandplan has ever been the law, but then there has never been a confluence of events quite like this before either - ARRL failed BW petition, 2 IARU regions adopting bandwidth-focused bandplans... and a WRC coming up in 2011.

You missed Region 3. They already have a bandwidth-focused band plan. I didn't copy all the frequencies, but below is the legend for their HF/VHF/UHF frequencies:

REGION 3 Band Plan Legend:
NB: Narrow band modes including CW, RTTY, Packet and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

Phone: Phone operation includes SSTV, FAX and modes with similar bandwidth not exceeding 2 kHz.

WB: Wide band modes including FM.

Satellite: This segment should be kept clear of other operating modes.

EME: Earth-Moon-Earth, Meteor Scatter, Auroral Scatter and other weak-signal.

Secondary: At 7.1 to 7.3 MHz, amateur stations shall not cause harmful interference to stations of the Broadcasting Service

I'm glad I have a Flex. I can set my bandwidth with a mouse click.

[KA8WTK]

"The bandwidth restriction petition was denied, because it would require more and/or stricter enforcement by the FCC itself."

As I recall, it was withdrawn, not denied. Please correct my 1/2 truth. If right, correct yours.

Thanks

[WA3VJB]

(I've made Thom's posting a "sticky" as a good discussion continues)

My question, long before Thom checked in on the matter, is what would have happened if there had been no pushback on this IARU Region 2 band plan?

Without the efforts of Tom, WA3KLR, Don K4KYV, Steve WD8DAS and others, the visibility of the activity of AM would not have "figured in" to the broadbased conversations going on all over the place.

I don't mind saying that between the AM community's response, and that of the anti-WinLink crowd, we probably would have had an FCC decision in RM-11306 by now. 

This latest expression of concern is consistent with a valid questioning and confrontation of a plan that did not include a substantial, or even significant number of people outside the known, factual agenda of the ARRL.

--Paul/VJB

[ka3zlr]

Now wait a minute....and just exactly where does this misinformational finger point back too, the same originator that caused this in the first place and the fault of Not bringing the realm up to snuff prior to any designates being set forth.

Boy that ticks me off...

[w3jn]

THom, I'm not trying to rub your face in anything, just trying sort out the facts.  Don't forget I once *tried* to save you one time from a vicious sunburn 

You are correct that no IARU bandplan has ever been the law, but then there has never been a confluence of events quite like this before either - ARRL failed BW petition, 2 IARU regions adopting bandwidth-focused bandplans... and a WRC coming up in 2011.

You missed Region 3.

No, I didn't.

I'm glad I have a Flex. I can set my bandwidth with a mouse click.

Would that be bandwidth at the -6 dB points, -60 dB points, or what?  What equipment are you using to verify that there's not some software glitch that's putting out a spur somewhere, or allowing excessive bandwidth?

Oh yeah, that's right - none of that's defined anywhere.  Guess I can run up to 2700 Hz full bore with a -6dB drop above that. 

My point is that in the lack of definition, the lack of equipment to verify compliance amongst the ham population, and the tenuous understanding by Hammy Hambone of what all this means relgates this and any other future regulation by BW proposal to the ashcan.

[WD8BIL]

All true, but spending more tax dollars to create and then enforce regulations that have already been deemed as unnecessary and counterproductive is a scenario that couldn't possibly be considered as being in the public interest.

Spending more tax dollars is what they live for Thom. It give them a "reason" to raise or create new taxes. At least that's how they've been operating the last 30 years.

Add that to the way Congress has been trying to micro-manage our lives (can't smoke here, can't have fries cooked in that oil, can't spank your kids ect..) and anything is possible and I wouldn't put it past them to try.

Where there's tax dollars to be spent you can bet they'll consider it !

[TedN]

The ARRL should promote, grow, and take the hobby forward NOT go backward and try to dissolve any mode it sees fit. They certainly are not promoting AM.

Why is there paranoia or concern over the IARU band plan? ALL of it can easily be reduced to this....

You can have the whole loaf of bologna for free if you steal it one slice at a time!


73
Ted / KC9LKE

[WA3VJB]

Now wait a minute....and just exactly where does this misinformational finger point back too, the same originator that caused this in the first place and the fault of Not bringing the realm up to snuff prior to any designates being set forth.

Boy that ticks me off...

It's sad, really.
If Rinaldo and whomever else at the ARRL really wanted to gain support for their agenda, all they had to do is break the pattern of secrecy and come forward with their idea.

They must know it is a poor or unacceptable concept of regulation by bandwidth, or voluntary bandplanning by bandwidth. So they sneak around, closed-door, backroom crap like this, letting us out here react to it after the fact instead of accepting their lumps for a bad idea, and discarding it in favor of something better.

What really gets me, and Sumner would tell you this himself, is the fact most of the response was negative to the DRAFT, preliminary Petition for regulation by bandwidth. Yet they moved forward with it anyway, with deceptive, selective "interpretation" of what they had been told by both their subscribers and the greater Amateur community.

I can only imagine the same thing would have happened to them again, had they spent the past two years of IARU Region 2 band planning trying to convince the masses all over again.

So, they did what they did.

Anyone see the IARU minutes of the Mess in Brazil yet ?  Wonder when they'll really show up.

[KA1ZGC]

(I've made Thom's posting a "sticky" as a good discussion continues)

That was totally unnecessary. Please un-stick it.

We already have one sticky topic regarding the IARU bandplan, we don't need two. This thread should be allowed to die a natural death, and not artificially sustained. Actually both of them should, but I didn't start the first thread.

Consider this my living will and honor it, okay?

Since the contributions to this thread are now almost identical to the contributions to the first one, I would suggest everyone go back over there.

I posted what I posted to blow steam, not start endless online sideshow debates on how the FCC works, how Congress works, how treaties work, how petitions work, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

You guys want to do that, go right ahead, but without me. When the debates subside, the topic can sink off the front page and life can return to normal.

Anyone who wishes to debate me on what I posted, turn on your rigs and do it on the air. I'm done posting to this thread.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

--Thom
Kilimanjaro Africa One Zulu Goat Cheese

[WD8BIL]

Anyone see the IARU minutes of the Mess in Brazil yet ?  Wonder when they'll really show up.

We'll see'em when the final draft is edited..... ahhh.... I mean , written.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

LOL! Too funny. A rant about a rant against others ranting. Or was it a rant about others ranting about a rant. Wow.