Report - Final Plenary of IARU Region 1 Conference

[M5AKA]

A PDF of the report of the proceedings at the Final Plenary of the IARU Region
1 Conference, Davos, 15th Sept 2005, can be downloaded from the RSGB Spectrum
Forum website on either the C4 (HF) or C5 (VHF/UHF/uW) Committee pages

http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/iaru_reg_1_c4_committee.htm
http://www.rsgb-spectrumforum.org.uk/iaru_reg_1_c5_committee.htm

73 Trevor M5AKA
---------------
Daily Amateur Radio RSS News Service: http://www.southgatearc.org/
Add News Service to your Website: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/index.htm
Add News Service to your PC: http://www.southgatearc.org/rss/newsreader.htm
Upload Your News Items: http://www.southgatearc.org/news/your_news.htm
---------------

[ab0wr]

Those who think a voluntary bandplan will work in the US should read these documents carefully to find out what the experience has been in Region 1.

Region 1 seems to be desperately grasping to find ways to put the genie back into the bottle.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

My guess is that neither the ARRL or the FCC will learn anything from history.

tim ab0wr

[kb3mng]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,04:49)]Those who think a voluntary bandplan will work in the US should read these documents carefully to find out what the experience has been in Region 1.
I went to see what the problem was, but what I've found so far suggests that it is working fairly well:

From HF Managers Report:
Quote[/b] ]
DL1VDL introduced the paper C4.3 and reported that German hams using the new bandwidth- oriented band plan are pleased with it.


From HF Bandplan Principles:
Quote[/b] ]
The current IARU Region 1 bandplan is well known and receives a high degree of respect and adherence within the IARU Region 1; hence major changes to the bandplan is not necessary for the time being.



Still, there is a great deal of material there and I didn't read it all. Also, I don't routinely read this kind of material, so it is entirely reasonable to assume that I didn't notice some implications of what I did read.

Could you point out specific areas in the reports that demonstrate your concerns?

[M5AKA]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,04:49)]Those who think a voluntary bandplan will work in the US should read these documents carefully to find out what the experience has been in Region 1.
And they will find voluntary band planning has been a great success and something the US should consider adopting.

We do not need Government Agencies dictating which modes can be used where.

[K4JF]

I think the comment "Experience has shown that the digital modes and telephony cannot share the same band segments" is quite telling. Therefore my only logical conclusion is that we MUST have the FCC determining which modes can be used where. I'm totally against ARRL on this one. 160m cannot be a model for the other, much more active bands.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (M5AKA @ Sep. 28 2005,04:42)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ Sep. 27 2005,04:49)]Those who think a voluntary bandplan will work in the US should read these documents carefully to find out what the experience has been in Region 1.
And they will find voluntary band planning has been a great success and something the US should consider adopting.

We do not need Government Agencies dictating which modes can be used where.
The RSGB feels differently according to their published document.

Here are some excerpts from the various documents:

**********************************

from General Conference, Davos, 11 to 16 September 2005

IARU Region 1 HF Bandplan Principles

from the "Key points and proposal" section

-The HF bandplanning basis, on which the current IARU Region 1 HF bandplan is based, accepts CW QSO's across all bands, except within CW beacon segments.

-Experience shows that telephony and digital modes cannot share the same segments, and should be assigned separate segments in the HF band plan.

-The establishment of all mode segments, mixing analog and digital modes, should be avoided because of mutual interference.

-Digitized speech should be considered a digital mode in bandplan matters, because such a mode is transmitting digital signals determined by a digital protocol (recommended by the IARU Region 1 Interim Meeting 2004).

-------------------------------------

from the USKA Society, Switzerland, Paper Number 31

-With a 3-year experience the actual HF bandplan (decided in San Marino 2002) does neither fulfill the needs of the users nor is respected by them. The definition of band-width is not well-tried because mainly on 10, 14, and 21Mhz the recommendations of the IARU Region are often not respected.

--------------------------------------

from the RSGB, Improving Bandplan Compliance, paper number 138

-An increasing proportion of the Amateur Radio community is using non-CW modes and deploying beacons within the CW communication sub-bands.

-national societies could do more to improve compliance with IARU bandplans.

-Note: The authors believe that the degree of compliance within the CW sub-bands in particular is indicative of the respect for IARU bandplans in general.

-The IARU Region 1 HF Bandplan has served the amateur community very well for many years, and has always been made available by the IARU member societies through a range of printed publications and internet resources. However, in recent years, it has been observed that
# #a) an increasing number of Amateur Radio operators can be heard operating data and telephony modes as well as beacons that transmit position and propagation data within the CW communication sub-bands:
# #b) non-Morse stations within the CW sub-bands are getting more aggressive and more confident, believing that they are "entitled" to do what they do.

-from the Conclusions section
#2) That each national society (or, initially, a small 'pilot' group of national socieites) work together to develop common and consistent methods for bandplan compliance by
# # a) logging incidents of non-compliance within their national borders;
# # b) producing regular reports that summarise the non-compliances.

************************

These are just excerpts. If you read ALL the documents it is my opinion that you will see a definite move to the position that voluntary bandplanning does NOT work.

With no enforcement capability to keep bandplan segments pure, usage in the amateur bands becomes nothing more than a war with the survival of the most aggressive mode and the most power output the only sure outcome.

You can put a brave front on it, much as the general comment document does, but if the voluntary bandplans are *already* seeing such erosion, it won't be long until chaos reigns.

To those who thing that is the way things should be I can only say - don't come here crying about the new digital, ARQ, 100% power density signal that is keeping you from making any contacts on the bands. That is exactly what you are asking for.

tim ab0wr

[ky5u]

Exactly, Tim. Data users will push down into the portirons and not honor agreements feeling entitled. Voice and data users will be at constant odds. Voice will expand into where it is allowed no matter what other agreements exist.

Leave things well enough alone or do the only real solution, put CW into 60kHz at the bottom of each full band, voice in its current position at the top. Sandwich in the 90kHz of digital between them where digital = everything else that is not CW (sent by hand key, rec'd by any means) or analog voice (SSB,AM). If either CW or analog voice loses popularity, digital can expand. Adjust the allocations based on the HF band as needed. Cookie cutter, repeat.