[AMRadio] IARU - VP ARRL contact by WD5BZO


Peter Markavage manualman at juno.com
Sun Nov 25 15:24:07 EST 2007


The B/C committee of Region 2 was chartered with developing the revised
Region 2 band plan based on the structure and fill of the existing Region
1 band plan with "regional and frequency" differences taken into
account". Since the voluntary Region 1 band plan has been in existence
since January 2006, what rules are the amateurs in these countries
covered by Region 1 following. We know that a number of U. S. amateurs
have worked European stations on 75 over the last several months. Are the
European amateurs actually limiting their AM bandwidth to 2700 Hz. 

Pete, wa2cwa


On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:45:51 -0600 "D. Chester" <k4kyv at charter.net>
writes:
> > From: sbjohnston at aol.com
> 
> >>The ARRL rep says the IARU region 2 bandplan is not meant for US 
> hams
> > -
> >
> > Why not?  The USA is in Region 2.  Radio signals don't stop at 
> national
> > borders - that's why a *regional* plan would be developed in the 
> first
> > place.  And can't we participate in the changing of the bandplan 
> for
> > our region if it includes other countries?  Hams in other 
> countries
> > aren't to be allowed to run all the modes we do in the United 
> States?
> 
> AM operation is not confined to the USA or even to the USA and 
> Canada.  I 
> have worked numerous AM stations in the Caribbean, and have heard 
> Cuban AM 
> signals on 160 many times, even though they have always been too 
> weak for me 
> to successfully work.  If AM is to remain a mainstream  facet of 
> amateur 
> radio, we don't want it to become a US-only activity for several 
> reasons. 
> There is quite a bit of interest in AM in Europe and Australia at 
> present, 
> so why not Central and South America?
> 
> The more world-wide interest there is in the mode, the more the 
> likelihood 
> that the manufacturers will continue to include AM capability on the 
> 
> store-bought transceivers that are sold worldwide.  Worldwide AM 
> capability 
> means more international interest in the mode.  More than just a few 
> 
> present-day AM'ers got their interest sparked when they tried out a 
> 
> transceiver on AM, and some of these hams have managed to generate 
> excellent 
> signals on the air using transceivers, equipped with high quality 
> microphones and maybe some type of audio processing,  working into 
> linears. 
> Others have actually opened the covers of their transceivers and 
> made 
> MODIFICATIONS (gasp!) to improve the quality of their AM signals.  
> Others 
> have since acquired or built plate modulated tube type rigs or gone 
> the 
> solid state class-E  route.
> 
> If AM is limited to a  relatively small group of US hams while the 
> rest of 
> the world goes the way of regulation-by-bandwidth and exclusion of 
> AM, and 
> if AM capability disappears from the popular radios sold worldwide, 
> it will 
> just be a matter of time until we see international pressure to 
> follow suit 
> in the USA.
> 
> This is just one of the reasons why the proposition that the IARU 
> bandplan 
> is not meant for US hams, that it will have no effect on what we are 
> allowed 
> do under Part 97, and that it is strictly voluntary and therefore US 
> hams 
> are under no obligation to conform to its recommendations,  is a 
> bogus 
> argument.
> 
> Don k4kyv 


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 16 Dec 2017.