eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

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



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective January 1st 2008:

from IARU on October 7, 2007
Website: http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf
View comments about this article!

IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective January 1st 2008:

See the full story (.pdf file) here:

LINK

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective January  
by N4QA on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Are we to believe that *anyone* at IARU is capable of putting together such a poorly-written paragraph which purports to introduce a new bandplan?

Or that the 17-meter band begins at 18.095 MHz?

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective January  
by KA7GKN on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Perhaps it's time for David Sumner to retire and find a new occupation and leave the ARRL. Also maybe it's time for the ARRL members to clean house and stop all this "back room cigar filled antics!!"

It's obvious that the ARRL is applying back room tactics as RM-306 failed miserably and they are now trying a different approach to imply ridiculous band plans!

Here we go again, with no ARRL survey of its membership or any notification of such action to allow comments and input from real Ham Radio Operators!

Leave the thing alone! what we have works just fine and allows wiggle room to experiment!


 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by N4QA on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Oooooh, so Newington is behind this, you say?

So, I guess it's time for a special W1AW bulletin, announcing that W1AW's code practice / CW bulletin freqs for 80m & 40m are moving from 3581.5 & 7047.5 KHz to something like 3547.5 & 7037.5 KHz, respectively...or, does ARRL now drop CW altogether?

It's getting easier to predict ARRL's next bad move...

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by KC2FTN on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Isn't is amazing that everything is the ARRL's fault?

Mike KC2FTN
www.hamwave.com
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by KC2FTN on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Isn't it amazing that everything is the ARRL's fault?

Mike KC2FTN
www.hamwave.com
 
IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective January  
by AI4ET on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Who amongst us would have ever thought that 60 meters with its 5 channels of 2K8J3E would become our wide band SSB audiophile frequencies?
 
IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective January  
by WB6MMJ on October 7, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Next we will have channels.
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by N2WEC on October 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I may be new but I still think I smell a rat.....
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan --  
by W9WHE-II on October 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
70 Some percent of hams REFUSE to join arrl. And stuff like this is just another reason.

arrl knows what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to know it. Now shut up, sit down, and send in your money.


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!
 
Not so fast, ARRL bashers!  
by AI2IA on October 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Before you rush to vent your personal frustrations against the ARRL, post some web sites on here where there are comments about this. Where did this come from? Quote some ARRL commenst about this. What is this, anyway?
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by KQ6XA on October 8, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Respectfully, the IARU Bandplan Committees have a difficult job. In this recent bandplan, I've noticed they are trying to give the appearance that they have moved to bandwidth-based bandplanning, but they still adhere to mode descriptions and categorization.

Sadly, they simply copied the IARU Region 1 bandplan, along with many of the poorly-planned parts of it. It is out of place in Region 2 (North America and South America Region). International normalization is good in some cases, but not when it happens in a negative or regressive direction. :)

The use of 200Hz limit bandwidth is totally unrealistic for anything except PSK31... and if you notice, they did not apply 200Hz to the worldwide PSK31 window at 14070-14073 kHz! CW operators normally do not operate within 200Hz of each other, except for CW contests. This begs the question: What is 200Hz in there for?


The 500Hz bandwidth segments are misplaced and the demarcations are not in concert with actual use on the bands. Devoting large portions of traditional digital data spectrum to such narrow bandwidths ignores all the advancements in time-efficient fast digital methods that can be used in 2kHz or 3kHz bandwidths.

They copied Region 1's limit of 2700Hz bandwidth. It is rather unrealistic, considering that many amateur radio SSB voice transceivers have 2.8 to 3.1kHz filters. Oh, and did you notice the wacky "AM exception"?

The 80m, 40m, and 30m bands in the plan are vastly out of touch with the reality in Region 2. In fact, they are in direct contradiction to USA's FCC rules. They somehow missed the fact that USA operators are 95% or more of the operators in Region 2. Didn't any of the
bandplanners notice the elephant in the room?

Perhaps they need input by more active digi operators over the next few years when they get around to making a new bandplan. It looks like they totally ignored the input they received over the past year. In the mean time, they missed the digitization trend on the air in ham radio, and the way that the bands are being used by operators on the ground.

By being out of touch with "ground truth", we can expect that large parts of the IARU Region 2 bandplan are going to be widely disregarded by operators in North America. In fact, they must be disregarded in some cases if operators follow their own country's ham regulations!

This is a tragedy, because this sort of "head in the clouds" bandplanning breeds overall contempt by the rank and file for bandplans.

As usual, the various world bandplans, including the new IARU Region 2 bandplan are on the HFLINK.COM bandplan site:

http://hflink.com/bandplans

73 Bonnie KQ6XA
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by WI7B on October 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Whatever difficulty they have, are they serious about obliterating PSK31 from it 40m calling frequency???

Quoting the new band plan:

"Digital voice (DV) centre of activity 7070 kHz"


That'll go over like a lead balun.

73,

---* Ken

 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by N5PVL on October 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Paul Rinaldo of the ARRL was secretary of the committee.

73,
Charles Brabham, N5PVL
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by N4QA on October 9, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Dag...blind-sided again!
Why didn't I see this coming?

Even Bonnie seems upset by this IARU bandplan for Region 2.

Hello out there...!?

*Anyone* happy with this impending travesty?

Does anyone still doubt that CW is threatened by a squeeze play?

*Sure* CW will thrive...but WHERE...between two cans connected by string?!

What a world...what a world!

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (except the US)  
by W6EM on October 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ah, yes. Since *when* has the FCC aligned our privileges with the rest of Region 2? So, come January 2008, we will have SSB privileges on 40M below 7.125MHz? Dream on. Similarly, that AM will be prohibited below 10M? (oops. I forgot about 11 meters. AM is still OK there)

If one looks at all of the other members of IARU, they all speak Spanish or Portugese. Maybe that's it. A bilingual translator is needed so ARRL can be understood as they vociferously objected to all of the changes. :-)

Also, why did ARRL waste the cost of the trip on one of the participants who is a departing Director, Frank Butler? (To throw one h*ll of a party for him down in Brasilia!!!) Wouldn't it have been more productive to have sent a newly elected Director or one that is running unopposed in the ongoing election process?

Lee
W6EM/4
Leeds, AL

 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (except the US)  
by W6EM on October 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Oops. Meant to say "all other members of Region 2 IARU speak either Spanish or Portugese"...
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (except the US)  
by W6EM on October 14, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
OOps #2. Canucks also speak English and French, I do believe. How about a cadre of translators?????
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by W1RFI on October 15, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> Does anyone still doubt that CW is threatened by a
> squeeze play?

What parts of the bands is CW not going to be permitted to use? Other than on 60 meters and 219-220 MHz, I don't think that having the entire parts of the bands could really be characterized as a squeeze play.

I am 99% CW in my operating and all I believe I have a right to expect is that my access to spectrum is fair. When I look at the fact that I have legal access to virtually the entire Amateur spectrum, and even under any band plan I have ever seen, I have access to many more communications channels than any other mode has, based on necessary bandwidth, I really can't say that my favorite mode is getting the short end of the stick. If I start tuning at 4 MHz on a Friday night, and tune down, I note what part of the band gets pretty quiet.

Except perhaps in a major contest, I have never had any difficulty finding a place for my QRP CW signal to operate. I don't think I could say that if my primary mode were SSB, so it is not the CW operator that is getting squeezed, IMHO.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by N4QA on October 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Really expected to hear you parrot that tired old
"CW can be used (almost) anywhere" line again, Ed.
But, truthfully, I think you are capable of a much more meaningful response than that.


'til then...

"But here in the real world...it ain't that easy at all..."

Hey, fellows, let's start up a CW roundtable on the old 75 meter Alligators frequency well before dark this evening. Wonder how long we'll last...

72,
Bill, N4QA


 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by W1RFI on October 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I agree, Bill, that the "use anywhere" aspect of CW does have its limits. But I have used CW in the "phone" parts of the band for what seemed like a good reason at the time, so I wouldn't discount it entirely. And CW operation in the "digital" parts of the band is not at all uncommon. The real bottom line is that the SSB contact cannot take place at all on top of the frequency used by your favorite CW net.

The real thrust of my post, though, was in the comparison with the available communications channels for CW vs other modes.

On 75 meters, phone operation is limited to 3.6-4.0 MHz. If we estimate 2500 kHz per communications channel, that would allow 160 simultaneous communications to be taking place on that band.

On 80 meters, 3.5-3.6 MHz is typically used for CW contacts. If we estimate 50 Hz per communications channel, that would allow 2000 simultaneous contacts to take place. If we were to conservatively estimate that half of the available band were taken up by digital signals, that would still leave 1000 communications channels available. And if we were to conservatively give 250 Hz to CW communications channels, that would allow 400 simultaneous contacts in the "full" CW band, and 200 simultaneous contacts if we presume that half of the band is digital operation.

Now, most hams don't operate 50 Hz apart on CW, but not using good spectrum management techniques, good equipment and good operating practice is not sufficient justification, IMHO, to declare that CW operation is being squeezed. As a CW operator, I don't believe that my favorite operating mode is getting the short end of the stick; there is still plenty of room for me to operate almost all the time.

Besides, if CW always gets through when other modes fail, you could have that CW contact in the 50 Hz between the SSB stations anyway. :-)

Ed, W1RFI
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by N4QA on October 16, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You're right, Ed.
I found plenty of room on 160 meters this evening.
Made four contacts down there using a modified version of Dave's (K1SWL) DSW-40 QRP CW rig with my DSWTUN07 software. There was also a tremendous DX pileup just above W1AW.
I call the project the DSW-600 because I also use the rig to listen in on (and watch, using Argo) the experimental stations on 505-510 KHz. Copied a new one just last night...WE2XGR/2 up your way.
Anyway, I'm just in a gripy mood lately over the over-crowding that's now occurring regularly between 7025 and ~ 7060. We used to skate around between 7000 and 7200 with only a little competition from the RTTY guys(of which I am now also one)in the 7080's. Times change, I guess.
The digital modes are fun...their 'audio' just doesn't sound as nice as CW.
Ok, Ed I'm headed back to 160 for another Q and then off to dream about something else to bash ARRL over <g>

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by W1RFI on October 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> Anyway, I'm just in a gripy mood lately over the
> over-crowding that's now occurring regularly between
> 7025 and ~ 7060. We used to skate around between
> 7000 and 7200 with only a little competition from
> the RTTY guys(of which I am now also one)in the
> 70-80's.

There is one thing that is worse than overcrowding, and that would be the lack of activity. :-)

If a particular operating mode is subjected to crowded conditions while other operating modes have plenty of empty spaces, there would be reason to complain. That was certainly the case on 75 meters not too long ago.

Even on 40 meters, where the defacto 100 kHz that we have in the teeth of the big broadcasters crowds everybody, I have never had trouble finding a spot to operate, except in perhaps major contests. If we were crowded on CW and there was no one using RTTY and other digital modes, I think we'd have a case, but if the reality is that we are getting a bit crowded on CW because other hams are using other modes, and perhaps feeling crowded too, can we really not see this as a good thing that activity is up, not down?

When the ionoshpere drops the bottom out of HF, none of us feel crowded, but I don't recall much celebration for all those open spaces.

How gripy can US phone ops be that they are crowded into the space that is shared worldwide with broadcasters? Does your sense of fair play suggest that you would support giving phone operation access to spectrum below 7100 kHz so they are not overcrowded? Ultimately, the broadcasters will be out of 7100-7200 kHz, but in the mean time, some of the phone guys are getting gripy about their present state.

My early experience in the 60s recollects that the CW bands had much more activity then than we see now on CW. The bands always sounded more crowded then than they do now, although in general, receivers were wider then than they are now, so it may have just seemed that way.

I agree, Bill, ham radio has gone through some changes, but that has been true ever since its inception. And each round of changes had its circle of doomspeakers who predicted the end of Amateur Radio. Even though I was 99% CW back then, I recall the SSB/AM wars, and SSB, with its unnatural sound, was going to decrease interest in ham radio and the bands would soon be empty.

And the Novice license was also seen by some as the end of ham radio, as all these new lids would come along and not operate the exact same way as the old timers. The exams were too easy when they went from drawing schematics to multiple-choice exams; the code test for the Novice was too slow to develop any real proficiency and hams were generally going to be dumbed down to the point where licenses would be available in a Cracker Jacks box.

Now, as then, the future of ham radio will be what we make it. The new hams coming on board will contain the same mix of brilliant people, a middle ground of people just interested in using radio to enrich their lives and the smattering of idiots that we have had in the service for years. But our reaction to change will make or break amateur radio, IMHO. Thus I stay as positive as I can, emphasizing the positive over the negative, because that positive future is the one I want to see occur, and the postive parts of ham radio are where workable solutions will be found.

It is my opinion that some of the mean-spirited ways I sometimes see hams treat each other here and on the air causes more haro to Amateur Radio than anything else I can imagine. If we want to bash, let's bash those that are tearing at the real traditions of Amateur Radio in the mistaken belief that they are somehow helping it be better.

They are wrong; tearing things down generally leaves a real mess, and unless those that bash are prepared to personally pick up the mess and do the incredible amount of work it would take to build anew, I believe that being destructive accomplishes no more than destruction.

It's possible to disagree without being disagreeable, and possible to criticize without destroying. But for criticism to be truly constructive, it must be accurate, specific and contain a better path and point the way to a practicial way of actually getting that better path to happen.

It reminds me a bit of the 60s. The hippies were against the war in Vietnam. To do something about it, they sat around in the park and sang songs. And on days that they weren't protesting the war, they sat around in the park and sang songs. It's not that simple, of course, but any changes that were made in the US policy towards the war were made by people who did a lot more than criticize in places and ways that simply would not affect real and positive change.

73,
Ed, W1RFI



 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by N4QA on October 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
One correction, Ed.
That hyphen you inserted in my 7080's does not belong there.
I was not referring to historical decades but rather to RTTY frequencies.
I should have included the 7090's (KHz) as well.

Agree with your assessment that some hams are using newer modes. If anyone can show us some hard numbers as to how many ops on which modes, which percentage of operating times etc, I'm sure we'd all find the data interesting.

Say, Ed, whatever happened to discussions about extending the 40m band downward to...what was it?...6950 KHz?
Many of us, I imagine, would love to say" Give WinLink (and other undesirables...as far as we OF's are concerned)6950-7000 KHz!
Hmmm...ours *is* a problem of bandwidth!
Just think how harmoniously we all would live in a 40m band that spanned, say, 6950-8000 KHz! We could all then get seriously 'lost' <g>
Of course, much would have to happen before such a dream could ever become reality.
It's a nice dream, though, isn't it, Ed?
So, Ed, how's about persuading your ARRL buddies to push FCC, IARU etc for a much 'wider' 40m band...

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by WA2DTW on October 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I think we are getting off topic here.
The question is- what can we do about an obviously flawed plan, to keep it from getting shoved down our throats?
I have written to my ARRL section manager and division director urging them to withdraw any support that the league may have for this plan. It is disappointing that the league did not poll its membership on this contentious issue.

73
Steve WA2DTW
 
RE: New IARU Bandplan for Region 2 (the Americas)  
by W9WHE-II on October 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
WA2DTW writes:

"I have written to my ARRL section manager and division director urging them to withdraw any support that the league may have for this plan".

My friend, they will NOT do that. The plan is being sheparded by David Sumner, the Exec Director of arrl and Secratary something of the IARU. Rule #1 at arrl is NEVER ,EVER disagree with Sumner.



"It is disappointing that the league did not poll its membership on this contentious issue".

arrl did not need to poll the dues-paying membership.
Based upon the firestorm of response, arrl pulled the proposal, but promised to "revisit" the issue later. They "revisited" the issue by making an end-run around the membership.

Face it, arrl doesn't care what you think. arrl knows what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to know it. Now, shut up, sit down and send in more money.


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership.
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by W1RFI on October 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The movement to extend the band downward may have been at least partially made moot by the recent ITU change that will move the broadcasters out of 7.1-7.2 MHz.

That should give the phone guys a bit more breathing room and will probably move some of the non-US phone operation up the band.

Ed, W1RFI
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by N4QA on October 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!

Moot...even partially...I don't think so.

If all amateurs, desiring to use whichever mode(s), felt as though they had ample bandwidth within which to carry on their favorite activities, I believe that we wouldn't have anywhere near the squabbling amongst ourselves that we now have.

40m is a special case for a variety of reasons.
If there has *ever* been a ham band whose being made 'wider' would benefit the amateur community at large, that band would be 40m.

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by W1RFI on October 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Having adequate bandwidth to carry out any communication at any time without sharing with other users is a luxury afforded ONLY to SOME emergency communications functions.

In my travels in industry and within IEEE and FCC circles, the move is so strong towards dynamic spectrum sharing and other techniques as to be dizzying. When I compare the principles I am seeing developed within industry, including sharing spectrum in time, geography, antenna pattern and coding, to the general technique in Amateur Radio of being the sole occupant of a communication channel until the channel is relinquished, I think that any thought that we could have as much spectrum as we want is pretty hard to justify.

I also note, however, that Amateurs have developed the very principles being explored, in the way we use the bands. Greg Lapin, N9GL, gave a nice presenation on this to the FCC Technological Advisory Council.

No matter how you slice it, the change on 40 meters was well worth doing, and if there is any move toward expansion of the worldwide allocation, I think it should extend upward to 7.3 MHz. If more spectrum is available, I'd rather see other bands than an expansion on the order you had suggested.

Ed, W1RFI
 
RE: IARU Region 2 MF/HF Band Plan -- Effective Jan  
by N4QA on October 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Very well then, Ed.

This past July, I tormented with my decision of whether to allow my ARRL membership to lapse.

Lately, however, it has become abundantly clear to me that ARRL's views of what amateur radio should be and those of my own are worlds apart.
And so they will remain.

72,
Bill, N4QA
 
RE: Not so fast, ARRL bashers!  
by K1QAR on November 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Back in '98, the ARRL pledged in its Reply Comments to the FCC to devise band plans by a "democratic process" and to "assure accommodation " of present on air activities.

It appears they forgot to do these things in the 2007 plan. It was apparently first announced in the September ARRL Letter as "adopted". As for accommodating existing activities, it specified a 2700 cycle "maximum bandwidth" for all of 160 meters, a popular band for AM.

'Nuff said?

 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other News Articles
Radio Lovers from Across the World go to Hamvention in Greene County:
Demo Showcases Diwata 2's Capabilities, Value in Times of Disasters:
Ham Fest Friendships, Traditions Continue:
Ham Radio Operator Sports 'Hairtenna':
AmateurLogic 130 is Here: