Topics

IARU Bandplan Comments to ARRL


WA0ITP
 

I responded earlier this morning after seeing a note on the Flying Pigs
reflector. My comments are here
http://www.wa0itp.com/IARU%20Bandplan%20Comments%20to%20ARRL.rtf pse feel free
to use any of them in your response.

If we dont speak up, 40M will look like 80M, i.e. almost no room for CW.

----------------------------------
I love this radio stuff !
72 WA�ITP
www.wa0itp.com
www.4sqrp.com
www.qrpspots.com


Don Jackson
 

On 02/19/2013 09:45 AM, WA0ITP wrote:

I responded earlier this morning after seeing a note on the Flying Pigs
reflector. My comments are here
http://www.wa0itp.com/IARU%20Bandplan%20Comments%20to%20ARRL.rtf pse feel free
to use any of them in your response.

If we dont speak up, 40M will look like 80M, i.e. almost no room for CW.
Hi Terry and the rest following this,

First off, Terry, be very careful in quoting the FCC rule on minimum power as it can (and has been) interpreted two ways (by QRO ops) and used against us.

� 97.313 Transmitter power standards. (a) An amateur station must use the minimum transmitter power necessary to carry out the desired communications.

So if you are running 5 watts on CW and the receiving station cannot quite hear you, this rule REQUIRES you to "up" your power. It REQUIRES you "must use minimum power necessary", so if you are using too little (less than "minimum"), you are in violation of 97.313(a).

Before everyone jumps on me for this, I agree that it was not the intent, but the way it is worded, well, what can I say? And if you don't get it, I'm saying the above with tongue in cheek.

Also before many on this list get up tight about this proposal, remember that the IARU is a volunteer organization, non-governmental, that is a cooperative between hams in 3 different areas of the world. As has been pointed out, some countries (for example, Panama) has no federal regulations as to use of modes in ham bands, i.e., no provision for phone bands, cw, etc. In our country, the FCC rules restrict us, but NOT the band plans do not. There has been only one instance that I am aware of where the FCC has used our voluntary band plan in an enforcement procedure, and that involved deliberate interference.

I am NOT at all defending the proposed band plan under consideration. However, I don't see it much different than practice today. Note the use of the words "ALL MODES" on 40 meters below 7125. Maybe I'm wrong, but I interpret that as accepting CW as legitimate on any frequency below 7125. And in case you didn't think about it, CW is not the only QRP mode! I ran less than 5 watts on PSK31 for years, including on our 80 meter Wednesday night net.

I am also in agreement with you Terry on the FCC actions (NOT band plans) expanding the phone bands over the years. It was not band plans or the IARU that caused this -- it was the vocal majority of hams who operate phone QRO and give ham radio a bad rap especially on 75 meters.

One thing all of us should remember, this is just a proposal, subject to change. However, if you don't like it, you are wasting your bits and bytes just saying "I don't like it" and the reason why. To be effective in your comments submitted you need to tell them what you would change and how it should be changed. The comment period is not a poll or vote, but a chance to shape the proposal the way you'd like it.

Nice idea about QRP "window" and comparing with DX window. But where would you propose it be put? That's important to a committee to have something more concrete, that way they can concentrate of where to put this window rather than to have one in the plan.

As one of the guys on the QRP-L list says, "back in my hole"...

73, Don AE5K