[AMRadio] ARRL Great Lakes Director on IARU Bandplan

Bob Peters rwpeters at swbell.net
Tue Nov 27 11:53:56 EST 2007

These are fantastic letters
and hopefully puts this all to
I think this is a trusted
reply and thankyou Warren for
getting it.

Bob W1PE

-----Original Message-----
amradio-bounces at mailman.qth.ne
[mailto:amradio-bounces at mailma
n.qth.net] On Behalf Of Warren
Sent: Tuesday, November 27,
2007 10:47 AM
To: sbjohnston at aol.com
Cc: Discussion of AM Radio in
the Amateur Service
Subject: Re: [AMRadio] ARRL
Great Lakes Director on IARU

Mr Johnson...

	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
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
	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
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
Tampa, Florida

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
> For background, the IARU is
the International organization
of national
> Amateur Radio societies from
around the world.  These
> include
> the Radio Amateurs of Canada
(RAC), the Radio Society of
Great Britain
> (RSGB) and the ARRL.  Region
2 of the IARU covers the
> hemisphere.  IARU cannot
issue legally-binding rules or
> 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
> 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
> to
> amateurs in countries that
do not have such government
> There
> 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
> 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  
> using
> the recent IARU Conference
to further regulation by
bandwidth.  I  
> enjoy
> reading CQ; however, as much
as I enjoy reading it I
equally strongly
> assure you that its editor
has gotten caught-up in bad
> The
> 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  
> similar
> 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
> AM.
> 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:
> AMRadio mailing list
> List Rules (must read!):
> List Home:
> Help:
> Post:
mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
> To unsubscribe, send an
email to
amradio-request at mailman.qth.ne
t with
> the word unsubscribe in the
message body.

Our Main Website:
AMRadio mailing list
List Rules (must read!):
List Home:
mailto:AMRadio at mailman.qth.net
To unsubscribe, send an email
amradio-request at mailman.qth.ne
t with
the word unsubscribe in the
message body.

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 24 Feb 2018.