|[AMRadio] ARRL Great Lakes Director on IARU Bandplan|
w1gud at tampabay.rr.com
Tue Nov 27 11:47:04 EST 2007
Many thanks for your reply, the first the AM community has received
one that was both civil and credible. I believe that some of your
fellow directors ought to be ashamed of themselves, and I hope you
have seen some of their correspondence directed to us. Its very
disappointing, and has only served to reinforce the view that many of
us have formed of the league through a lifetime of disappointment on a
range of issues from incentive licensing, to bpl, to code
requirements, to PRB-1, to bandwidth issues. I think you misjudge and
under estimate what you call a "small flurry of concern by some AM
colleagues". Considering the current state of the hobby, the number of
new licensees, and the fact that the great majority of us are aging
and that a significant number of us collect and restore old gear, the
league needs to turn this AM issue into a wake up call.
Most of us are long-time amateurs, who've been league members nearly
all our lives. I signed up at age 12, three years before I got my
novice ticket. I've been licensed now over 40 years, and have operated
AM continuously in one way or another over those years. I remain
convinced that the league would outlaw our part of the hobby if it
could. I only maintain my membership so that I can have a voice and
won't be dismissed as an "outsider". I think its sad that looking back
at the issues over the years, I can't think of a single issue that
left me feeling like the league was on my side as an amateur.
I think most of us would have felt much better if our arrl
representatives at the IARU conference were a bit more informed, and
put their intentions in voting for this proposal on the record. I
think we also have our doubts that there was not, in fact, some plan
to use the IARU issue as a leg up to move closer to outlawing AM in
the US. Mr. Rinaldo's role remains of interest, and is most suspect.
As for the CQ editors path towards "bad journalism", as a journalist
all my life, I must caution you that these things happen when one is
unable to get the "whole" story. If the league was more forthcoming,
and spoke with clarity and transparency, these things would not
happen. Its a shame that no logical, thinking person could avoid the
same conclusions CQ reached, based on the "facts" at hand. What else
are we to think?
Again, thank you for your frankness and willingness to address the AM/
Vintage radio community. I wish some of your candor would rub off on
the rest. But I'd also urge you to weigh again the importance of a
vital, active community in amateur radio that's much more than " small
flurry" in the big picture.
Warren Elly W1GUD
On Nov 26, 2007, at 10:57 PM, SBJohnston at aol.com wrote:
> Here are some comments from the Great Lakes Division Director, Jim
> Weaver K8JE, regarding the IARU band plan proposal.
> - - - - - - - - -
> +++ AM Privileges -- Under Attack? +++
> Definitely not!
> A few members contacted me with questions about the possible impact on
> US hams of a bandplan adopted by Region 2 of the International Amateur
> Radio Union -- IARU. The answer to the question is that the Region 2
> bandplan has no impact on US hams.
> For background, the IARU is the International organization of national
> Amateur Radio societies from around the world. These societies
> the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC), the Radio Society of Great Britain
> (RSGB) and the ARRL. Region 2 of the IARU covers the Western
> hemisphere. IARU cannot issue legally-binding rules or regulations.
> There are three regions in the IARU. Each of the regions has a
> voluntary bandplan. The Region 1 and Region 3 bandplans preceded the
> Region 2 plan. IARU Region 2 held a conference a few weeks ago.
> Among other actions, it adopted its new recommended bandplan during
> this conference.
> It is critical to understand that this recommended bandplan has
> absolutely no relevance to countries such as Canada and the US which
> have federal agencies (e.g. the FCC) that define and regulate Amateur
> Radio bands. In addition, IARU bandplans are merely recommendations
> amateurs in countries that do not have such government agencies.
> is no force of law behind the voluntary bandplans.
> The concern of some amateurs seems to be that the FCC will adopt the
> Region 2 bandplan; thereby reducing the US's frequency allocation for
> AM. One writer from the GLD said the FCC has previously adopted a
> number of practices recommended by the IARU. To this moment, he has
> not responded to my request to identify just which IARU recommended
> actions were picked up and adopted by the Commission. Similarly, a
> writer from outside the GLD has accused IARU President Larry Price,
> W4RA of a written attempt to manipulate International Treaty to reduce
> AM privileges. To date, he too, has not responded to my request for a
> reference to the source of his accusation.
> Finally, CQ Magazine has jumped into the fray by accusing ARRL of
> the recent IARU Conference to further regulation by bandwidth. I
> reading CQ; however, as much as I enjoy reading it I equally strongly
> assure you that its editor has gotten caught-up in bad journalism.
> basis for the editorial appears merely to be ARRL's
> publicly-acknowledged support of regulation by bandwidth and the fact
> that the Region 2 bandplan specified bandwidths. This logic is
> to claiming 1 plus 1 = 6.
> The fact is that ARRL did not participate in developing this bandplan.
> We had no representation on the bandplan committee. Could it be that
> in reality, the plan was developed in its present form because the
> delegates who drafted it believe this is the way it should be and that
> there was no dastardly conspiracy after all? Or is it too hard to
> believe in this day of ever-present conspiracy theories is it too much
> to expect that some things are done in a fully responsible manner?
> The bottom line to this small flurry of concern by some AM colleagues
> is that the Region 2 bandplan represents nothing to worry about. The
> IARU has no impact on US FCC regulations . . . the FCC has no apparent
> intent to act against AM in the foreseeable future . . . the ARRL has
> no thought of recommending the FCC take action against AM . . . and I
> will vote against any effort to get ARRL to recommend action against
> My recommendation to AM operators is to relax and enjoy your favorite
> form of Amateur Radio . . . for a long time.
> - - - - - - - - -
> Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL
> Mail! - http://mail.aol.com
> Our Main Website: http://www.amfone.net
> AMRadio mailing list
> List Rules (must read!): http://w5ami.net/amradiofaq.html
> List Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/amradio
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.html
> Post: mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an email to amradio-request at mailman.qth.net with
> the word unsubscribe in the message body.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 16 Jan 2018.