Re: [digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
The station you singled out, VE2AFQ, is not operating illegally when operating just below 14070 as a Pactor PMBO. A polite reminder sent to the station might work? Tried that before 1-1-08 and got no reply. Will try again now that the bandplan has been published, but it really should be done by a Canadian, since it is a Canadian-approved bandplan as well as a US-approved bandplan. There are a number of US PMBO Stations which list access frequencies very close to 14070.0 . K6IXA, KB6YNO, N0IA , to name a few. These are certainly not in the unattended band portion. Have a look at the Winlink station list for more information. I have that list from ZS5S. So this brings up the questions; is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? No, it is not acceptable to the ham community and the ARRL has pushed hard for everyone to follow bandplans. IMHO, US stations should voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with all FCC regulations. Where FCC regulations allow operations that the bandplan does not, the bandplan should be followed, or what is the sense of trying to work together? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? That is what the IARU wants, but if everyone followed the bandplan, agreed upon by member societies where they live and operatoe, there would be no need for any change in regulations, which take years to change in many cases. Unfortunately, there are some US amateur groups who refuse to follow bandplans, to the detriment of all. 73, Skip KH6TY John VE5MU No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1222 - Release Date: 1/13/2008 12:23 PM
Re: [digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
This seems to me to sum up much of the difficulty in working together to solve a common problem. It is my understanding (and someone can correct me if I am wrong about this) that the ARRL approached the FCC a while back and asked them if the rules could be changed here in the U.S. so that bandplans formed by a body that represents U.S. radio amateurs would carry the force of law. (Perhaps that could include both IARU regional plans and the ARRL's own bandplan?). The FCC declined to support such a rule change. Therefore, bandplans are still only a recommendation only and theoretically do not have to be followed. On the other hand, my further understand is that Mr. Hollingsworth has written letters to hams who are not operating within the bandplan which suggests that they may use this for possible enforcement action. Personally, I would rather it be clearly understood what is expected by the FCC and then we can all follow the same rules with no need for equivocation. For those who do not support a given rule, there is always the redress by petition. My personal goal is to try and make sense of the bandplans, (not always easy to do), and follow them within the legal framework of our country's rules. Hopefully this will be true for other radio amateurs from their respective countries. 73, Rick, KV9U kh6ty wrote: is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? No, it is not acceptable to the ham community and the ARRL has pushed hard for everyone to follow bandplans. IMHO, US stations should voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with all FCC regulations. Where FCC regulations allow operations that the bandplan does not, the bandplan should be followed, or what is the sense of trying to work together? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? That is what the IARU wants, but if everyone followed the bandplan, agreed upon by member societies where they live and operatoe, there would be no need for any change in regulations, which take years to change in many cases. Unfortunately, there are some US amateur groups who refuse to follow bandplans, to the detriment of all.
[digitalradio] IARU Region 2 Bandplan: Errors Re: HF Automatic Sub Bands
In Canada, we are encouraged by RAC (Radio Amateurs of Canada) and the Canadian government to follow the newly released IARU Region 2 Band plan. The station you singled out, VE2AFQ, is not operating illegally when operating just below 14070 as a Pactor PMBO. A polite reminder sent to the station might work? There are a number of US PMBO Stations which list access frequencies very close to 14070.0 . K6IXA, KB6YNO, N0IA , to name a few. These are certainly not in the unattended band portion. Have a look at the Winlink station list for more information. So this brings up the questions; is it acceptable for US stations to ignore the IARU Region 2 band plan, when FCC regulations allow them to, or should they attempt To voluntarily follow the IARU band plan AND comply with FCC regulations? And Should the IARU attempt to have member countries accept the band plan as written, and to enact a set of bandwidth-based regulations which would enforce this plan? John VE5MU
