[AMRadio] IARU - VP ARRL contact by WD5BZO


Jim Wilhite w5jo at brightok.net
Sun Nov 25 16:22:06 EST 2007


Most of the argument is the "slippery slope"analogy.  The opening shot 
was fired by the ARRL in its regulation by bandwidth proposal.

That was met with a lot of resistance, especially by those of us who 
like to use AM.  Our main contention was that AM was only mentioned as a 
footnote in the proposal and the ARRL defended their proposal with 
fanfare.  At the very least, it seemed to be a defense not a discussion 
and they did not even mention AM as a mode, just focused on the wideband 
digital modes.

There were two groups that opposed the RM.  One was those of us who like 
and use AM.  The other was the group who read the proposal about 
automatic forwarding of "internet mail" by robot transmitters that would 
transmit no matter if the frequency was in use or not.

Now comes this.  The ARRL representative goes to the IARU meeting and is 
mentioned as the source of the bandwidth proposal being inserted into 
plan.  This made it seem as if something underhanded was occurring.  So 
with that in mind, most of the AM community and many SSB operators are 
incensed at the whole mess.  Ron/W6OM offered to host an internet 
seminar to give the ARRL officers a chance to explain their position and 
take questions about it.  This would have been a perfect opportunity to 
gain support for their position.  The officers have received a deluge of 
email messages and so have the directors and all attempts have been met 
with silence from the ARRL staff and some directors.  This lends an air 
of secrecy to what is happening at ARRL.

To have an effective voice in the ARRL one needs to be a member for 
sure, but considering the ARRL represents the amateur community world 
wide, they should be willing to accept input from any amateur, member or 
not.  So with this in mind, the ARRL doesn't enjoy much support from the 
AM community.  Our option seems be to sponsor a recall election for the 
directors to get their attention that we are serious.  The ARRL officers 
and directors are in a precarious position of having more knowledge of 
what is on the world stage than most of us, and they must communicate it 
to us in an effective considerate way.

I submit they are not communicating well or effectively.  About 1/2 of 
the opposition to regulation by bandwidth would have disappeared if they 
had modified the proposal to include AM as a mainstream mode.  So now we 
are fighting the IARU proposal knowing that someday down stream the 
regulation by bandwidth will reappear to our determent.  Just how do you 
propose we should react?

Jim/W5JO


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Markavage" <manualman at juno.com>
To: <amradio at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] IARU - VP ARRL contact by WD5BZO


> 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
>
>



More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 19 Oct 2017.