<N2EY@AOL.COM> wrote > > Why isn't there any room for AM on 160, 40, 20, 17, 15 or 12 meters? > There's plenty of room; Part 97 rules allow AM operation on each of those bands. Neither the ARRL or IARU bandplan has any legal standing beyond being two (of several) recommended ways of hams using their assigned spectrum. Since the bandplans serve two different populations sets, it isn't reasonable to expect that they'll be carbon copies of each other. If every country had exactly the same assigned bands, and those countries all micromanaged the ham spectrum like FCC does, then a unified and consistent IARU bandplan might be feasible as "law" to all those administrations. In the meantime, FCC isn't issuing any nasty letters for AM operation on any band where it's authorized, even if IARU hasn't blessed that operation. The Man in the Maze QRU on Baboquivari Peak, AZ -- Iitoi

OM's visiting the group i read that Antique Modulation is out Of course there will be a reason use of bandwith? However there are groups of OM that are interested in W.O. 2 equipments and even shipradio They may not use their Rigs anymore? Only because young newcomers dont understand history and can not tune with their modern SSB rig 19 sets or ARNC s old aircraft sets like TR 2200 wil be forbidden We are also amateurs who love a part of the hobby 73 de PA 0 RAB <N2EY@AOL.COM> schreef in bericht news:1192533054.392406.255520@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf > > This plan is supposed to go into effect Jan 1 2008. It's a voluntary > plan, not FCC regulations. > > IMHO: > > Good Things: > > 1) The general idea of sorting modes by bandwidth is a valid one. > Narrow and wide modes just don't mix well. > > 2) The plan puts 'robot' (unattended) stations in well-defined places, > rather than letting them wander all over the band. > > 3) There are centres of activity - watering holes - for various > activities, like image transmission. This does not mean they can't go > on other places, just that there's a defined place to meet. > > Bad Things: > > 4) The plan almost completely bans AM voice! From 160 through 10 > meters, AM is only allowed on 3600-3625 kHz, 3875-3900 kHz, and > 29000-29300 kHz. On all but 10 metres, AM is an asterisk to the 2700 > Hz bandwidth. > > 5) The plan does not agree with other, similar plans, such as the ARRL > bandplan. It seems to me that the IARU Region 2 bandplan and the > bandplan of the largest amateur radio organization in Region 2 should > at least agree. > > --- > > The no-AM thing is a big one to me, even though I'm a CW operator. AM > is a perfectly legal mode on all US HF/MF amateur bands except 60 and > 30 meters, yet the plan says that 'good amateur practice' is to not > use AM *anywhere* below 29 MHz except 50 kHz of 80/75 meters. And > that's regardless of propagation, number of hams on the band, > contests, etc. > > This sort of thing sets a very bad precedent. It effectively makes the > use of a perfectly legal mode 'bad practice' on all but a small > percentage of the available-by-law spectrum, and on all but parts of > two bands. > > Now some may say "it's just a voluntary bandplan, not a regulation". > And that's true, but it's not the whole story. > > When interference problems between amateur operations have arisen that > do no involve clear Part 97 rules violations, FCC has usually ruled on > the side of the amateur operating in accordance with the voluntary > bandplan in effect at the time. The most-common example I know are > cases where an uncoordinated repeater and a coordinated one have > interference issues. AFAIK, the uncoordinated repeater always loses > because coordination is good amateur practice. But coordination is > really just a form of voluntary bandplan, since we amateurs administer > it, not the FCC. > > It seems to me that under the IARU plan, if I were to operate AM on, > say, 40 metres, and an SSB station were to complain about interference > from me, I'd be on the defensive from the getgo because, by > definition, the SSB op is operating in accordance with the bandplan > and I'm not. > > Most of all, if they can do it to AM, they can do it to other modes. > Once the precedent is set, it's just a matter of expanding it. > > It seems really odd to me that while recent FCC rules changes widened > many of the phone bands, particularly on 80/75, this bandplan > drastically reduces and eliminates them for AM. > > Again, IMHO, the IARU can do better. > > 73 de Jim, N2EY >

The band plan is merely a suggestion for use in those countries that have not developed their own band plans. It does not ban AM voice. In those countries that already have band plans such as the US, Canada, etc, it does NOT supersede them. "R.A Abrahams" <r.aabrahams@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message news:474b2953$0$59790$dbd4b001@news.wanadoo.nl... > OM's > > visiting the group i read that Antique Modulation is out > Of course there will be a reason use of bandwith? > However there are groups of OM that are interested in W.O. 2 equipments > and even shipradio > They may not use their Rigs anymore? > Only because young newcomers dont understand history and can not tune with > their modern SSB rig > 19 sets or ARNC s old aircraft sets like TR 2200 wil be forbidden > We are also amateurs who love a part of the hobby > > 73 de PA 0 RAB > > > > <N2EY@AOL.COM> schreef in bericht > news:1192533054.392406.255520@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf >> >> This plan is supposed to go into effect Jan 1 2008. It's a voluntary >> plan, not FCC regulations. >> >> IMHO: >> >> Good Things: >> >> 1) The general idea of sorting modes by bandwidth is a valid one. >> Narrow and wide modes just don't mix well. >> >> 2) The plan puts 'robot' (unattended) stations in well-defined places, >> rather than letting them wander all over the band. >> >> 3) There are centres of activity - watering holes - for various >> activities, like image transmission. This does not mean they can't go >> on other places, just that there's a defined place to meet. >> >> Bad Things: >> >> 4) The plan almost completely bans AM voice! From 160 through 10 >> meters, AM is only allowed on 3600-3625 kHz, 3875-3900 kHz, and >> 29000-29300 kHz. On all but 10 metres, AM is an asterisk to the 2700 >> Hz bandwidth. >> >> 5) The plan does not agree with other, similar plans, such as the ARRL >> bandplan. It seems to me that the IARU Region 2 bandplan and the >> bandplan of the largest amateur radio organization in Region 2 should >> at least agree. >> >> --- >> >> The no-AM thing is a big one to me, even though I'm a CW operator. AM >> is a perfectly legal mode on all US HF/MF amateur bands except 60 and >> 30 meters, yet the plan says that 'good amateur practice' is to not >> use AM *anywhere* below 29 MHz except 50 kHz of 80/75 meters. And >> that's regardless of propagation, number of hams on the band, >> contests, etc. >> >> This sort of thing sets a very bad precedent. It effectively makes the >> use of a perfectly legal mode 'bad practice' on all but a small >> percentage of the available-by-law spectrum, and on all but parts of >> two bands. >> >> Now some may say "it's just a voluntary bandplan, not a regulation". >> And that's true, but it's not the whole story. >> >> When interference problems between amateur operations have arisen that >> do no involve clear Part 97 rules violations, FCC has usually ruled on >> the side of the amateur operating in accordance with the voluntary >> bandplan in effect at the time. The most-common example I know are >> cases where an uncoordinated repeater and a coordinated one have >> interference issues. AFAIK, the uncoordinated repeater always loses >> because coordination is good amateur practice. But coordination is >> really just a form of voluntary bandplan, since we amateurs administer >> it, not the FCC. >> >> It seems to me that under the IARU plan, if I were to operate AM on, >> say, 40 metres, and an SSB station were to complain about interference >> from me, I'd be on the defensive from the getgo because, by >> definition, the SSB op is operating in accordance with the bandplan >> and I'm not. >> >> Most of all, if they can do it to AM, they can do it to other modes. >> Once the precedent is set, it's just a matter of expanding it. >> >> It seems really odd to me that while recent FCC rules changes widened >> many of the phone bands, particularly on 80/75, this bandplan >> drastically reduces and eliminates them for AM. >> >> Again, IMHO, the IARU can do better. >> >> 73 de Jim, N2EY >> > >