The AM Forum
March 28, 2024, 11:10:41 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ARRL Board support Double-Sideband AM  (Read 21605 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« on: February 01, 2008, 10:14:01 PM »


From the ARRL Letter:
 
- - - - - - -
 
ARRL BOARD AUTHORIZES NEW SECTION POSITIONS, ADOPTS BUDGET, MORE, AT ANNUAL MEETING
 
The ARRL Board of Directors held its first 2008 meeting in Houston,Texas on January 18-19...
 
All ARRL officers were re-elected without opposition...
 
To address members' concerns arising from a new IARU Region 2 HF band plan <http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf>
, the Board affirmed its support for the retention of Double-Sideband AM as a permitted emission in the Amateur Radio Service and reaffirmed, without change, the 160 meter band plan <http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/bandplan.html#160m> as previously adopted by the Board in July 2001.
 
- - - - - - -
 
Steve WD8DAS
 
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10057



« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2008, 10:44:05 PM »

the Board affirmed its support for the retention of Double-Sideband AM as a permitted emission in the Amateur Radio Service and reaffirmed, without change, the 160 meter band plan

I can appreciate the part about supporting the retention of DSB AM in the amateur  service, but I see a contradiction regarding that they reaffirmed, without change, the 160m band plan, which makes no provision for AM on that band, which has historically been a mainstay for AM operation in the amateur service.
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
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2008, 01:04:11 AM »

We already have a thread (started January 28) on the latest BoD meeting where this item was identified:
See:
http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=13449.0


And Don, you said, "...but I see a contradiction regarding that they reaffirmed, without change, the 160m band plan, which makes no provision for AM on that band..."

They're not talking about the IARU Region 2 Band Plan. They're referring to the ARRL Band Plan.
To read the entire 2001 160 Meter Band Plan Committee Report, go here:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-0107/160-meter.html

Under Discussion Topic, Item C:
The Committee received a large number of comments from the AM community and vintage equipment operators. The vast majority stated that they did not want any changes made regarding AM. There are established and recognized frequencies used on 160 for AM. For example, 1.945 MHz. has been used for almost 45 years. Also, 1.885 MHz and 1.925 MHz. are long established frequencies as well.

The Committee spent considerable time on this topic and considerable discussion was held directly with AM operators who sent messages to the Committee. Based upon this input, the Committee recommends no changes with respect to AM operation.

As a side note, during the review of AM operations, the Committee discussed whether to suggest that AM rag chewing be conducted above 1.900 MHz. While limiting rag chewing to frequencies above 1.900 MHz might be desirable, the majority of the Committee felt there should not be such a limit as it conflicted with the input received.


And, under Summary, Item 7:
7. AM operations continue to share the same band segment as SSB. No specific calling frequencies for AM operation should be identified.

Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2008, 11:50:10 AM »

Quote
affirmed its support

For this to have any practical meaning, the ARRL Board should have voted to immediately support amendments to the IARU Region 2 band plan that remove enumerated bandwidths detrimental to AM activity, while preserving the IARU goal of encouraging coordination through the use of generalized references to bandwidth as "wide," "medium," and "narrow," with no further definition required.

No country in Region 2 has been identified as requesting enumerated bandwidths that are detrimental to AM in the IARU context, and the stated goal of providing guidance to operators in countries so needing could be accomplished through the means proposed.

Clearly, a genuine expression of support for AM would have involved recognition that the concerns expressed to the ARRL had merit and were prompted by a mistake or oversight in the member society's representation of the mode at talks in Brazil that led to the revised IARU plan.

No such acknowledgment has been seen.

The people who for now are administrating the League also seem to be confused, deliberately or unwittingly, by attempting to link to its own bandplanning the negative feedback received about the IARU plan for Region 2.

The concerns that had been expressed, and the decision by the ARRL to take NO action in response, refer directly and entirely to the IARU activity, not the "ARRL's band plan" that the League itself regularly violates against AM on 40 meters by using an incompatible mode for W1AW announcements.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2008, 01:44:47 PM »

No country in Region 2 has been identified as requesting enumerated bandwidths that are detrimental to AM in the IARU context, and the stated goal of providing guidance to operators in countries so needing could be accomplished through the means proposed.

Bermuda and Aruba, both Region 2 members,  already have, as part of their amateur rules, 2.7 KHz and 3.0 KHz maximum bandwidth respectively.

Quote
The concerns that had been expressed, and the decision by the ARRL to take NO action in response, refer directly and entirely to the IARU activity, not the "ARRL's band plan" that the League itself regularly violates against AM on 40 meters by using an incompatible mode for W1AW announcements.

For a few minutes each night, starting at 9:45 PM, on 7290 KHz, they operate a voice mode on a frequency that no amateur owns. Hardly a big issue when we have other posts on the board wondering where all the AM activity is during the evening hours on 40 meters. And, like the IARU Region 2 Band Plan, the ARRL Band Plan is also voluntary.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2008, 01:55:31 PM »

No country has been identified as requesting the enumerated bandwidths in the revised IARU plan, to match the stated intention of addressing a country's regulations that do not otherwise provide guidance.

The League's mistake during its representation of U.S. licensees at the IARU was to suggest a solution for a problem that does not exist.

That AM is a victim in this solution, is a problem for which the ARRL is held accountable.

This is the focus of whether their club should be retained as the representative "Member Society" for U.S. licensees at the IARU.
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2008, 04:24:34 PM »

Well, nothing ventured nothing gained with respect to what thread contains what, but with all do respect if it's brought up, and if your compelled,.. discuss it,,,

 Again what Need is there that determines all these activities at the Bod..do I see anything about CW or FM Phone efficiencies or deficiencies No....what inadequacies cause all this...what's the driving force...Time would be better spent on other things i would imagine....I can see a Need for term limits...a need for young minds and fresh ideas...at the board level...need to find younger men and get their feet in the door...

 Exercise this system push some fresh Air in there...Quit Boxing everything up....
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2008, 05:03:45 PM »

No country has been identified as requesting the enumerated bandwidths in the revised IARU plan, to match the stated intention of addressing a country's regulations that do not otherwise provide guidance.

It's been documented in the IARU thread on this board, on the IARU web site, on the ARRL web site, and probably numerous other places  what the reasons for the revised Region 2 Band Plan. It's no mystery, except possibly to a select few, who perceive legislative amateur radio tyranny around every corner.

Quote
The League's mistake during its representation of U.S. licensees at the IARU was to suggest a solution for a problem that does not exist.

It's obvious the none of the Region 2 member representatives agree on this point, since they all approved the revised band plan proposal, regardless of which members on the B/C Committee may have actually proposed the majority of the changes.

Quote
That AM is a victim in this solution, is a problem for which the ARRL is held accountable.

Since the Region 2 band plan is voluntary, and our own FCC regulations preempt any voluntary band plans, including the ARRL's, there are no victims here. I haven't heard of anyone in the U. S. changing their operating habits after January 1, 2008.

Quote
This is the focus of whether their club should be retained as the representative "Member Society" for U.S. licensees at the IARU.

No argument here. They are the only organization with the resources, knowledge, and past background to represent all amateur radio activities in the U. S.
Logged

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

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2008, 05:09:32 PM »

Well, nothing ventured nothing gained with respect to what thread contains what, but with all do respect if it's brought up, and if your compelled,.. discuss it,,,

 Again what Need is there that determines all these activities at the Bod..do I see anything about CW or FM Phone efficiencies or deficiencies No....what inadequacies cause all this...what's the driving force...Time would be better spent on other things i would imagine....I can see a Need for term limits...a need for young minds and fresh ideas...at the board level...need to find younger men and get their feet in the door...

 Exercise this system push some fresh Air in there...Quit Boxing everything up....

From the ARRL By-Laws:
13. No person shall be President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Director or Vice Director of the League unless, at the time of nomination, he has reached his 21st birthday and is a Full member of the League.

The youngest current ARRL Director is 28 years old. Young blood is already there.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 02, 2008, 05:22:11 PM »

No Mystery on the Shortcomings...They're continual and documented...All anybody wants to Know is Why...at least that's what I think...and yes the trust factor is low in some aspects there's no Tyranny around any corner..LOL...possibility of Agenda Maybe.?..again look at the Track record...Maybe New leadership...at the Top...Change is Good...Move along Now...

There's Not a darn thing Wrong with being a member of the league...Nothing..the resources are useful great help for the new...Great place to start...all that is Fine...The issues concern the Top hats...
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #10 on: February 02, 2008, 05:29:59 PM »

Well, nothing ventured nothing gained with respect to what thread contains what, but with all do respect if it's brought up, and if your compelled,.. discuss it,,,

 Again what Need is there that determines all these activities at the Bod..do I see anything about CW or FM Phone efficiencies or deficiencies No....what inadequacies cause all this...what's the driving force...Time would be better spent on other things i would imagine....I can see a Need for term limits...a need for young minds and fresh ideas...at the board level...need to find younger men and get their feet in the door...

 Exercise this system push some fresh Air in there...Quit Boxing everything up....

From the ARRL By-Laws:
13. No person shall be President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, Director or Vice Director of the League unless, at the time of nomination, he has reached his 21st birthday and is a Full member of the League.

The youngest current ARRL Director is 28 years old. Young blood is already there.


OK Pete I respect your points..all the way to the top ?..."More Young People" is he the only one i don't keep track of the personnel....your the representative here..
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 02, 2008, 05:45:02 PM »

OK Pete I respect your points..all the way to the top ?..."More Young People" is he the only one i don't keep track of the personnel....your the representative here..

Unlike some who try, I do not represent any other person(s) nor any organization or group. I only represent myself.

The entire list of Divisions and their representatives are available for viewing by anyone. Most Divisions also have their own Home Page.
http://www.remote.arrl.org/divisions/
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #12 on: February 02, 2008, 05:48:47 PM »

Quote
the reasons for the revised Region 2 Band Plan.


These include providing guidance for countries where the regulatory structure does not specify where modes/activities should be situated.

We have no "member society" nor any licensees from any country in Region 2 on record as requesting enumerated bandwidths, except the ARRL, whose licensees enjoy guidance established in a public environment by the FCC.
Logged
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2008, 06:11:03 PM »

Then Once again, what reasoning has caused this...and Who pursued it......and in my opinion..that individual(s) isn't representing Correctly...the League collective isn't on issue it becomes What..?

Logged
wd8das
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2008, 10:49:40 AM »


Pete wrote:

>We already have a thread (started January 28) on the
>latest BoD meeting where this item was identified

I'm looking all over the place but I sure don't see any previous thread beginning Jan 28 dealing with the same topic as mine:  these public announcements in the ARRL Letter.  I'm not sure how there could be, as the ARRL Letter came out on February 1, 2008.  And even if there was one, and mine was redundant, would that be such a crime?  Pete, I get the strong impression you don't like my contributions.  Do you favor more information, or less?  In your view should I just shut-up?

Steve WD8DAS

Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 03, 2008, 01:21:55 PM »

Thank you for posting this "affirmation" from the group in Newington, Steve.

I found it curious that you beat Pete to the punch, maybe that's his problem, if any.

Their statement may disappoint anyone hoping for a crumb of support for AM from those who (for now) are running the ARRL.

They do not address their failure to represent AM in the ARRL's vote of support for the IARU Region 2 plan, and have not resolved how they could justify such a vote despite opposition to enumerated bandwidths expressed by U.S. licensees in a domestic governmental proceeding.

So what are we left with ?

34. Proceeding to Directors' motions, on motion of Mr. Edgar, seconded by Mr. Leggette, it was VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors affirms its support for the retention of double-sideband AM as a permitted emission in the Amateur Radio Service.

This can mean anything.

I appreciate your drawing attention to their statement, and the disingenuous portrayal of taking action "for AM" when in fact, they've declined to do so where there is an immediate need.
Logged
Pete, WA2CWA
Moderator
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8154


CQ CQ CONTEST


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2008, 03:04:46 PM »


Pete wrote:

>We already have a thread (started January 28) on the
>latest BoD meeting where this item was identified

I'm looking all over the place but I sure don't see any previous thread beginning Jan 28 dealing with the same topic as mine:  these public announcements in the ARRL Letter.  I'm not sure how there could be, as the ARRL Letter came out on February 1, 2008.  And even if there was one, and mine was redundant, would that be such a crime?  Pete, I get the strong impression you don't like my contributions.  Do you favor more information, or less?  In your view should I just shut-up?

Steve WD8DAS

If you go to the link I posted, started by Tom, WA3KLR, on January 28, on this board, http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=13449.0
it identifies the same information from the January BoD meeting you posted from the ARRL Letter. The ARRL Letter is nothing more then the week's summaries of happenings relevant to amateur radio and the ARRL. Personally,  my only point was that a redundant thread has now been created and thread info, in all its flavors, is scattered over two threads on the board. It just makes for "pain in the butt" viewing when there are two threads under the same forum (ARRL Forum) basically talking about the same thing.

I favor as much information as can be gathered on a topic as long as the information is gathered under one topic heading. It's makes for better reading and comprehension of any issues and concerns that may be presented having it all under one thread. It's not the end of the world; I merely wanted to point it out. And yes, Paul, I read the ARRL Letter when it arrived on Feb. 1, but again, I felt it was redundant information that was already in an active thread here on this board.
Logged

Pete, WA2CWA - "A Cluttered Desk is a Sign of Genius"
ka3zlr
Guest
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2008, 04:55:46 PM »

I never understood why anybody needed an Affirmation from these people for an already established mode...regardless of who said what to whom... Cheesy

Are they that Bored up there..."Recognize what you have", ""see the potential"", """Limit Nothing""",...How hard is that to understand...I need to go to a director for this...Duh...

What is our Job up there...Helloooo...are we awake... Grin
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2008, 05:49:55 AM »

Jack when you approach your Director, ask for details as to what led them to utter this statement. Take good notes. 

Then ask them why they didn't apply that affirmation to the mistakes made against AM in the IARU Region 2 plan.

And, if you're really feeling lucky, ask them why they felt specific bandwidth numbers in the IARU plan were of greater value than generalized references that licensees could easily grasp and implement as part of a voluntary coordination of modes and activities.
Logged
Pages: [1]   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 0.083 seconds with 19 queries.