[South Florida DX Association] ARRL Tries to Calm Bandplan Controversy

[Bill Marx]

ARRL Tries to Calm Bandplan Controversy
Paul Courson (WA3VJB) on December 14, 2007

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.

Best Regards,

John, WØNZG