[CW] ARRL Seeks Input for New IARU Region 2 Band Plan

[sbjohnston at aol.com]

In addition to sending my comments on the Region 2 bandplan to the 
feedback email address provided, I also wrote directly to League 
officials.  I received this reply from the President, Kay N3KN.

- - - - - - - -
Thank you for your comments. The Region 2 band plan accommodates DSB AM 
operation. For example, if you look at the segment 7100 - 7130, you 
will see a asterisk by the 2700 bandwidth. Then scroll to the bottom of 
the entire chart to find the reference for that asterisk, which says, 
"DSB AM allowed in this segment with a maximum bandwidth of 6 kHz." The 
omission of the AM calling frequency on 80 meters was accidental and 
will be remedied in
the revision.

The Region 2 band plan is not part of the FCC's Rules and has no 
regulatory effect upon us in the USA. The current version does not and 
the revised version will not have any adverse effect upon your 
enjoyment of the Amateur bands using the modes you and your friends 
prefer.

Kay N3KN
- - - - - - - -

And I replied...

- - - - - - - -

Kay -

Thank you for your reply. Your response doesn't really address my 
concerns, as I'm not calling for some sort of special "exception" for 
certain modes. Sounds like you've prepared well for complaints from the 
AM community, but I question the whole business of segregation by 
bandwidth.

How many hams do you know that can measure occupied bandwidth in their 
shack? Can you?

Or do you rely upon the type of mode (CW, computer, voice, etc) to 
decide where best to operate? I'm betting that you, like 99% of hams, 
are not measuring their bandwidth but instead making assumptions based 
on modes-compatibility.

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - -

Further response from the ARRL President:

Hi Steve,
In the USA we are regulated by the FCC's Rules, not by this band plan. 
The
Region 2 band plan cannot require any licensee in the USA to measure
occupied bandwidth for any mode of operation, because it has no 
regulatory
force in this country. The Region 2 band plan does not even refer to
measurement of occupied bandwidth. Please don't over-react to the 
bandwidth
column. It does not obligate American hams to make any technical
measurements and imposes no burden on us. It is information that is 
desired
by Amateurs in some other countries, and that's all.
73 - Kay N3KN

- - - - - - - -

And my further response to the ARRL President:

- - - - - - -
Kay wrote:

>The Region 2 band plan does not even refer to
>measurement of occupied bandwidth.

What is the point of assigning a maximum bandwidth to the various band
segments if it is not a measured bandwidth?  A parallel example:  A
speed limit sign on the side of the highway is meant to be used in
combination with the speedometer in your car.  If automobiles were not
equipped with speedometers, would speed limit signs be posted?

Assigning a max bandwidth will invariably result in claims that someone
is "wider" than the allowed maximum. Thus my earlier concern about
creating unnecessary stress and contention among amateurs.

>Please don't over-react to the bandwidth column.

Does the ARRL want my feedback, or not?  In your first email reply you
seemed to be trying to convince me I'm wrong, and now you are
suggesting that I am "over-reacting" and shouldn't worry.   Why do you
feel to you have "defend" the IARU Region 2 bandplan and argue in
support of the present plan?  I thought it was open to discussion.

> It does not obligate American hams

If the IARU Region 2 bandplan means nothing to American hams, why, in
fact, is the ARRL even working on it?  Why ask members for their
feedback on the bandplan?  It is the *American* Radio Relay League,
after all.   If, on the other hand, the ARRL has a significant play in
the Region 2 bandplan, then as a member of the League I would think
that my views would be welcomed - not rejected out of hand as wrong.

Steve WD8DAS