Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Storm clouds on the horizon...  (Read 707 times)
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« on: December 24, 2007, 01:15:42 PM »

I was just reading the little blurb on the first page of the web site as it relates to our radios regional band plan.

Yall might want to read it as well.  An interesting piece of news.

Here is my take on it...

We, the FCC, just as well adopt the new region band plan weither we like it or not.

The primary reason being that the FCC rules and regs WE follow do not govern other countries, nor their rules and regs our country.  Hence all independant countries in our region under the voluntary plan CAN if they wish adopt the proposed plan,( or not).  I think that they will.  

Its going to boil down to this.  IF the vast majority of the independant governing agencies of radio communications in other coutries decide to adopt the new plan then the vast minority will be by pure brute force of the majity force all countries to adopt.

This upcomming storm gathering is completely unlike the code/no code thing.

The way this thing will work out is fairly obvious.  IF the FCC hesitates to adopt the new band allocations and Canada and Ol Mexico decide to adopt the plan we are going to be the cream filled center of an oreo cookie.  With Canada running those big amps to the north and Mexico running even BIGGER amps to the south anyone in dispute in the middle is going to get squished, twisted appart and dipped in cold milk.  

This is one fight we are not going to win if the majority of the countries in our region decide to tell us to go get screwed.  

It is completely UNLIKE and will bear absolutely no resembelance to the the code/nocode situation. That previous situation was a matter of who will or will not get a license and delay was possible for a while.  

BUT this is a strictly a matter of the other countries NOT allowing dissenters to even hear should a country not "go with the flow".

And the pure fact is that phone is just incapable of hanging in there in competion with the pure harrasing sound of digital for any appreciable length of time.   The human voice gives out after a period of time.  And the human ear and patience just will give out long before that.  That long loud annoying digital noise is made by a computer/a machine and generated by the mere click of a mouse button.  It can easily outlast the human voice and patience.

I predict, gut feeling at this point, that the FCC will relent and will, shortly after the new voluntary plan goes into effect, also adopt and slightly refarm the spectrum usage to comply with the new 'voluntary' band allocations and useage.  

Welcome to the new world order guys.  Overall I do believe that we are going to win by NOT winning.
Logged
KA5ROW
Member

Posts: 500


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2007, 01:43:21 PM »

You did not say what web site.
Logged
N6AJR
Member

Posts: 9921




Ignore
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2007, 02:06:41 PM »

what is this talking about, a diatribe against D-star, ssb, am?? or just a  flambe source??
Logged
KB9CRY
Member

Posts: 4283


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2007, 02:07:08 PM »

Who you calling an Oreo?
Logged
W7ETA
Member

Posts: 2527




Ignore
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2007, 02:31:45 PM »

Rants should be posted in the Speak Out area.

Well meaning, confusing rants should be posted in the Article section.

Elmer section is to ask questions.

73
Bob
Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2007, 02:33:27 PM »

I think he is making refrence to the new region 2 band plan that the IARU has posted and the ARRL claimes the had no parts of.

http://www.wz5q.net/docs/wa3vjb12-8-07.pdf

http://www.iaru-r2.org/wp-content/uploads/region-2-mf-hf-bandplan-e.pdf

http://www.wz5q.net/docs/Zero_Bias_Dec07.pdf
Logged
AC5E
Member

Posts: 3585




Ignore
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2007, 03:24:45 PM »

Big amps to the north and bigger amps to the south?

I 'spect I still know where a water cooled TX that runs 17 KV @ 1A is - and I am already wired for 480 3 phase - but I can work everything I can hear with a KW or less so I don't think a bigger amp would make any difference. And if digital becomes more interesting I will likely give it a try. But all this premature speculation is not doing anything but running up blood pressure.

73  Pete Allen AC5E

Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2007, 04:23:48 PM »

First off the web site....

http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/


Look at the band plan, voluntary from my understanding.  Note that the plan does not MIX modes but rather very specific single moded groups.

Its the mode width program on the international scale.

When the flack starts, it will be interesting.

Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2007, 04:38:59 PM »

Per Eham, main page, articles the piece I referenced...


ARRL Tries to Calm Bandplan Controversy:

The ARRL, the club that has been allowed to represent all U.S. licensees at the International Amateur Radio Union (IARU), is trying to defend a new regional band plan taking effect in January that may not be supported by many American hams because of its bandwidth overlays.

A statement from the Newington-based group follows widespread concerns, letter-writing campaigns, and internet discussions that are critical of the details and the fact they were developed out-of-view of the licensees who ordinarily would support voluntary bandplanning.

"During the conference, held September 10-14 in Brasilia, representatives from IARU Region 2 societies met in committees prior to a final plenary session and adopted recommendations," the League statement says.

The plan is the result of nearly two years of planning, according to an email from ARRL corporate executive Dave Sumner, K1ZZ. But that planning among Region 2 delegates has not been widely publicized for U.S. amateurs. Given the controversy over the concept of a bandwidth-based coordination scheme, the ARRL's endorsement of the plan has surprised many, including officials at the FCC when queries began to come in.

Many American hams are disappointed they may not be able to support the voluntary plan, and complained that the ARRL acted without their informed consent when it endorsed provisions that do not match U.S. operating patterns and could be used in future regulatory proposals.

In a website announcement nearly two months after the Brazil decision, the League downplays the lost support by emphasizing that U.S. amateurs need not comply with the measure which specifies a 2.7 kHz bandwidth for popular voice modes.

"There is also a mistaken assumption that the new IARU Region 2 band plan is an ARRL initiative seeking regulation by bandwidth. It is not, nor is it in any way a vehicle to achieve regulation by bandwidth," according to the unsigned ARRL message distributed in advance Dec. 7 to certain U.S. licensees who had written ARRL officials complaining they had no warning or opportunity to suggest alternatives.

The IARU concept of using bandwidth to coordinate modes and activities on HF is similar to the ARRL's failed petition last year to the FCC, which the group withdrew from the agency at a time of heavy opposition from both its subscribers and the greater amateur community in the U.S.

League officials, apparently misunderstanding the message from their constituents, continue to threaten to again submit such a petition in the future, when "some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community," the new statement says.

Two sources within the IARU have confirmed that the suggestion of using bandwidth in the Region 2 scheme came directly from the League's Paul Rinaldo, 76, a paid staffer who has made it a mission to use the U.S. regulatory system to force acceptance of digital communications, a category not popular in the Amateur Service.

The League attributes the enumerated bandwidth specifications to an IARU plan approved earlier for the European Region 1. But neither the ARRL nor key Region 1 officials explain why they prefer troublesome bandwidth parameters instead of the longstanding, accepted system of grouping modes by type to coordinate operating activities.

There is no technical discussion in the IARU plan that would help radio hobbyists determine whether they comply with the bandwidths specified. It was this same shortcoming as a factor that doomed the ARRL's Petition to the FCC, RM-11306, according to comments filed in the agency's public record.

League officials surrendered in that domestic arena before the FCC could act. Some critics believe the IARU step was an "end run" to an international venue where delegates may not have been aware of the extent of opposition to enumerated bandwidth among U.S. licensees.

U.S. League planners at the international venue have been mute as to why the IARU could not achieve a voluntary coordination scheme through generalized references to signal footprint, such as "wide," "medium," and "narrow," which would have been easier to grasp and implement.

"Many countries do not have government-regulated sub-bands within their amateur allocation," the League asserts in its December statement. But ARRL officials have not named a single country whose licensees would benefit from the new Region 2 plan using a bandwidth scheme.

Also of concern is the ARRL's reliance on specifications contained in documents of the International Telecommunications Union. The ITU takes suggestions from volunteer groups like the IARU, but does not typically initiate regulatory recommendations for radio hobbyists unless governments have expressed a clear trend the ITU may address.

One familiar example is the ITU's recognition of governments that discontinued the Morse code licensing element, which eventually led the FCC to also drop the requirement.

And despite the League's assertion it does not plan to use the new international plan as part of a new thrust for its agenda at the FCC, it's a different story on the IARU website. "It is suggested that Member Societies, in coordination with the authorities, incorporate it in their regulations and promote it widely with their amateur communities."

The League, charged with speaking at the IARU for all U.S. licensees, did not excuse itself from the call to promote the plan to the FCC and American hams. ARRL officials have not responded to questions whether they opposed enumerated bandwidths in IARU deliberations, based on a record of expressed opposition by their U.S. constituents.

ARRL President Joel Harrison, W5ZH, responding to emails in recent weeks from U.S. licensees concerned that they will not be able to support the IARU plan, said the ARRL's Board of Directors would have developed a policy for the League's representative(s) at September's IARU deliberations in Brazil.

But Harrison has not responded to requests to disclose that advance planning, confirm that it actually took place, and to somehow demonstrate that U.S. licensees were polled on the prospect of adding bandwidth overlays to the Region 2 plan.

The website statement says "ARRL has conducted an open process of soliciting input regarding matters of importance to the Amateur Radio Service. That will continue prior to the submission of any proposals for future regulatory changes to improve the Amateur Radio Service."

The apparent secrecy ahead of the IARU conference was the subject of an article in the December CQ Magazine. Editor Rich Moseson has been critical of the League's tendency to plan its policy and regulatory proposals without adequate input from U.S. licensees.

And now in the aftermath, with explanations that some deem incomplete and unsatisfactory from elected and paid ARRL officials, there are subscribers who insist they will not renew when their dues expire.

Steve Johnston, WD8DAS, wrote "I am a long-time member of the ARRL, and my respectful and gently-expressed opinions on the bandplan have been ignored, insulted, attacked, scorned, belittled, and pooh-poohed."

Particularly egregious was a patronizing email sent to a large group by the ARRL's George R. Isely, W9GIG, the elected Central Division Director. He was responding to concerns expressed by active U.S. licensees in their letters to him and other IARU and ARRL officials.

"The current mini-uproar is the result of a very few ignorant people with issues making postings to various un-moderated Internet email reflectors," Isley said in part. He later apologized to Johnston, but did not issue a revised notice to his constituents.

Harrison, the ARRL president, said "I don't believe good operating practice should be mandated by regulation." Harrison apparently disagrees with FCC §97.101, which states in part "each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice."

Given his suggestion the U.S. can ignore the IARU plan, Harrison did not address why his club did not formally ask to be excused from the international body's call to now pitch the plan to U.S. and other regulators.

Among the hams confronting the ARRL for its role in the IARU plan, John Fitzsimmons, W3JN wrote "I think the suspicion is that once all of these bandplans line up, the goal of the ARRL is perhaps to lobby the ITU to institutionalize them at the next ITU WRC. Once so accepted by the US they would have the effect of being a treaty," he wrote.

Rinaldo met with ITU officials in late November about the planning process, according to IARU president Larry Price, who said no decisions were made at the meeting in Geneva
Logged
N6NKN
Member

Posts: 425




Ignore
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2007, 06:30:53 PM »

So pull out an umbrella.
Logged
G3RZP
Member

Posts: 4830




Ignore
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2007, 02:58:35 AM »

How many countries mandate the amateur band plans? The only one I know of is the US. Yes, some countries have restricted access for basic class licences, but that's all. The ITU and rest of the administrations really don't care as long as mateurs self regulate. Why the US considers it necessary to mandate bandplans is a bit beyond me.
Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2007, 05:55:45 AM »

"Why the US considers it necessary to mandate bandplans is a bit beyond me."

The reason is simple our government feels it must have control over every facet of our lives. Sad part is in 2008 we stand a good chance of driving the final nail in to democracy. This country was founded by folks fleeing religious oppression and over taxation. So what have we done created a government that is doing just what we tried to avoid.

I find it quite sad the United States is running around asking for the rest of the world to hold free and open elections for its leaders. Yet we can’t even have the here in the USA.
So that why in a short answer why are country makes a big deal over regulation. It is just a case for controlling the People. Oh PS Happy Holiday’s Once known as Christmas
Logged
WA9SVD
Member

Posts: 2198




Ignore
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2007, 08:34:13 AM »

Now suddenly an IARU band PLAN has become an FCC requirement?

    Did I miss a ruling somewhere?  When do the new FCC regulations take effect?  I can't believe I mussed the (usually) lengthy discussion and comment period.  Guess the ARRL snuck one in under our noses?  Or has the IARU taken over regulatory duties from the FCC?  (After all, "outsourcing" is very popular these days.)
Logged
N5LRZ
Member

Posts: 0




Ignore
« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2007, 08:59:13 AM »

Re SVD

Just as the FCC adopted the global standard of dropping morse as a requrement for licensing they too will also in the end adopt the proposed regional band plan.

They will have to do so sooner or later.  Sooner rather than later if the countries of Canada and ol Mexico adopt the plan leaving US hams stuck in the middle of conflicting band plans.

As in the code v no code thing, it will be what the FCC wants and NOT NOT NOT what we want.  Its always been that way, it is that way and always will be that way.

An Amateur Radio License is NOT a constitutional right.
Logged
N3JBH
Member

Posts: 2358




Ignore
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2007, 10:23:57 AM »

"An Amateur Radio License is NOT a constitutional right."

We the people no longer have any Constitutional rights. What was thought to exist has been amended or perverted to the point the are no longer  rights. Ask your local Lawyer or Judge.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Next   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!