QST de W1AW ARRL Bulletin 5 ARLB005 From ARRL Headquarters Newington CT February 5, 2020 To all radio amateurs The ARRL HF Band Planning Committee is seeking comments and suggestions from the Amateur Radio community on its report to the ARRL Board. At the Board's January meeting, the committee presented its specific recommendations in graphical form for each HF band and each US license class, with the goal of increasing harmony on the HF bands, particularly between CW and digital users. The recommendations can be found online in PDF format on the arrl.org web site. "In general, the committee is of the opinion that there is justification for additional space to become available for digital modes, as well as for the operation of digital stations under automatic control," the committee told the Board. "The very changes in spectrum usage that have required our committee's resurgence indicate that digital modes of communication are already increasing in popularity, and the trend is expected to continue or even accelerate. To this end, we have tried to ensure that digital allocations are sufficient for at least a modicum of growth." The committee also anticipates an increase in automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS). The report further points to "significant use" of modern data modes in emergency communication and said its recommendations provide significant support for the evolution and continued relevance of amateur radio. "Our failure to adapt to these needs could consign amateur radio to the technological scrap heap," the report said. The committee was revived last summer to consider conflicts between FT and JT modes and other modes. The panel's approach has been to designate distinct assignments for CW, narrowband (NB) data 500 Hz, wideband (WB) data 2800 Hz, and ACDS. For its work, the committee presumed approval of three ARRL petitions to the FCC: RM-11708 (WT Docket WT 16-239-"symbol rate" proceeding), RM-11759 (80/75 meter allocations), and RM-11828 (enhanced Technician privileges). The committee also assumed that users can agree to sharing arrangements within a given allocation-narrowband vs wideband sharing within the ACDS allocation, for example. It also took into consideration how mode usage is regulated or planned elsewhere in the world. In terms of mode classes, the committee agreed on CW, NB data, WB data, NB with ACDS, and WB with ACDS. The committee said it considered these mode classes incompatible and that they should not have overlapping allocations, with the exception of CW, which is authorized within any amateur radio allocation. The committee's approach would maintain the existing low-end 25-kHz CW-only sub-bands for exclusive use by Amateur Extra class licensees. The panel encouraged CW identification and a listen-before-transmitting protocol for ACDS, if feasible. It also decided that a single allocation for ACDS without regard to bandwidth would be the best approach. "We note that this will put responsibility on the digital community to hold an effective dialog on the issue and to then self-regulate the users of this segment to adhere to the eventual agreement." A need for flexibility in allocations is desirable, the committee said, and considered whether allocations might be time-of-day or time-of-week dependent, for example. "Modern amateurs must expect to adapt to this kind of fluid assignment of spectrum to incompatible uses, using time-based sharing, rather than only a single assignment," the committee said, expressing the hope that as band plan/sharing agreements are reached that they consider the advantage of non-simultaneous sharing possibilities. Reiterating the position ARRL has taken in recent FCC filings, the committee said it sees encryption and open-source as enforcement matters as being outside the scope of the Band Planning Committee. The Committee would like comments by February 19. Comments may be filed online at, http://www.arrl.org/bandplan . NNNN /EX
You only have till February 19th to comment on this, it's really easy to do just go to the link. Below as quoted from another post "Many of use us those frequencies daily for Side Band 3607, 3629, 3640. Their proposal removes Single Side Band use by Extra class in that frequency range. That equals a loss of privilege for Extra class who worked hard for their license. The ones that are saying we're not using the 80 phone Spectrum has not been listening from about 4pm in the afternoon through the evenings and in the morning from about 5am till past daylight, when the band is usable. A few groups that I know for the past months this winter have been trying to get a place to have a round table and I'm located in Kansas and we're having a big problem finding clear frequencies almost daily. 80 meter band conditions like they are, are very long, there is no Spectrum available, the solar cycle is changing activities on 80. First thing and the League needs to do and I haven't heard anyone supporting it is giving the old Advanced class license Extra class privileges. Those poor guys had to take an an additional written test and passed 13 wpm code when it was required, but when everything was restructured they didn't get anything. Wideband digital/ACDS in this day and age is not needed, all the other Radio Services are embracing digital Technologies using maximum Spectrum limiting. Ham Technologies are not up the current technical standards by utilizing the frequency spectrum in the best way. That's why we had the ARRL supported incentive licensing back in the sixties we had to upgrade and we would get more frequencies, now we're going backwards, I don't think so. I'm a life ARRL member, so I guess I can't stop my membership if they support this kind of foolish activity, but I can be a grumpy old man and complain about it!! I definitely can assure you my Section manager right on up to the President of the league will hear about it from many of us on 80 SSB. Also some AMer now operate in that part of the band . That's what happened last time and they backed down, and we all we're led to believe that this was a dead issue. Several League officials told me that personally at Dayton. This is not anything the FCC is proposing, it's something that somebody foolishly came up with and the League's is backing it. We have far more Extra class license hams now than at any time in the past. That was the idea for upgrading, everyone worked hard to upgrade, some of us even had to take a 20 word a minute Code test, so we would have more privileges. now they want to take it away from us. That is WRONG, taking away SSB privileges from 3600 to 3500. I have three family members who are technicians and were working on up grading. My grandson become a ARRL life member at 12, now says he doesn't feel the incentive to upgrade he's just going to wait and see. If the league is really trying to be a better run organization, which I thought it was doing, these kind of things wouldn't happen. Many of us committed to the league last time and they decided not to support it so what's going on up there now?? And they only give us till the 19th of February to comment wow. Are they going to publicly post these comments or going to send us an email back letting its know that they've confirmed our comments, I have already filed but no response. Taking extra class privileges away, goes against the last 50 years of incentive licensing and upgrading that the ARRL has supported. Wideband digital/ACDS in this day and age is not needed. Years ago everybody talked digital, the idea was for it to use a whole lot less Spectrum, some hams and the ARRL are going backward. We need to embrace narrow modes, That's what analog to digital in the cellular industry did, and also on Digital television, now we have multiple channels occupying the same bandwidth. I would say the ARRL needs to work on getting digital technology to really utilize less Spectrum, then we will all have plenty of spectrum. That's the real issue. The digital technology that amateurs are using is not using technology to effectively manage Spectrum. We wouldn't even be talking about this if our digital technology followed what was going on in DTV or cellular. Cellular companies even though they were spending billions $$$ for spectrum still had to change their technology, in fact the FCC mandated it"
Please, everyone please read this proposal- and make your comments to the ARRL! I keep seeing about the digital aspect/ allocations of this proposal- but I have yet to see or hear anyone on air talking about the SECOND portion of this proposed recommendation... New frequency allocations for Technician class operators on HF. Proposed new additional frequency allocations follow (all 200 watt limit)... 3.900 to 4.000 7.225 to 7.300 21.350 to 21.450 Don't understand why there is no chatter about this. Has this just been slipped into the proposal like a "bridge to nowhere" clause? I could perhaps agree to seeing techs get a small allocation (25 kHZ?) on these bands to create some interest in upgrading- but not half of the General SSB portion!!! I am a believer that working and achieving a goal gives more interest, skill and satisfaction than having it simply handed to you. Not here to justify or argue my opinion, just make you aware that this proposal is two totally separate issues. Please, everyone please read this proposal- and make your comments to the ARRL!
HF Band Planning committee members: Mr. Raisbeck (Chair), Mr. Steve Ford (Staff Liaison), Mr. Carlson, Ms. Jairam, Mr. Ritz, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Ned Stearns. This team was reaffirmed by the Jan 2020 ARRL Board meeting. They recommended that all comments should be filed within two weeks, (now set for February 19th). That's not very long for decision of this importance. Quoted on another post on QRZ by WA2LXB ""The ARRL often beclowns itself by presenting filings to the FCC that neutralize the ARRL BOD votes. Lack of transparency also raises suspicions among rank and file ARRL members. Special interests are at play at the ARRL and FCC...particularly the very well funded Seven Seas Cruising Association for yachts and others to avoid paying connect fees to Sailmail, Ocens, and other commercial yacht communications providers and to muck up ham bands with commercial traffic posing as emergency communications. Often, Winlink and PACTOR are abused for commercial purposes, from coordinating yacht races to ordering pizza and sharing pornography by unlicensed operators who are 'borrowing' legitimate ham call signs. Their lobbying intent is clear...to widen the digital areas of the band plans in all ham bands for commercial and personal traffic via "free" use of the HF ham bands, often by non-FCC licensed yacht operators. Much of this abuse of Winlink with specific texts lifted from their illegitimate and illegal communications is outlined here starting on page 29: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10718632326911/July 18, 2019 Ex Parte Filing.pdf If you want to keep abreast of these special interests and their negative effect on the ARRL and FCC, then file with the FCC one of the better links for this is here: https://wireless-girl.com/FCCrulemaking.html The ARRL often beclowns itself by presenting filings to the FCC that neutralize the ARRL BOD votes. Lack of transparency also raises suspicions among rank and file ARRL members. Special interests are at play at the ARRL and FCC...particularly the very well funded Seven Seas Cruising Association for yachts and others to avoid paying connect fees to Sailmail, Ocens, and other commercial yacht communications providers and to muck up ham bands with commercial traffic posing as emergency communications. Often, Winlink and PACTOR are abused for commercial purposes, from coordinating yacht races to ordering pizza and sharing pornography by unlicensed operators who are 'borrowing' legitimate ham call signs. Their lobbying intent is clear...to widen the digital areas of the band plans in all ham bands for commercial and personal traffic via "free" use of the HF ham bands, often by non-FCC licensed yacht operators. Much of this abuse of Winlink with specific texts lifted from their illegitimate and illegal communications is outlined here starting on page 29: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10718632326911/July 18, 2019 Ex Parte Filing.pdf If you want to keep abreast of these special interests and their negative effect on the ARRL and FCC, then file with the FCC one of the better links for this is here: https://wireless-girl.com/FCCrulemaking.html"
The “technician enhancement” was petitioned to the FCC by the ARRL something like two years ago. It is not “slipped in”, it is not new. It’s already at the FCC as an RM, has been through the comment period, and is awaiting FCC action.
Might be the case that it was petitioned, but it is still an active proposal and comments are being "requested". Oddly enough, the proposal is no longer on the home page of ARRL site- one must look for it.... Go to ARRL.org Click tab at top right "News and Features" Scroll down on left column to "Bandplan" This opens the comments screen. Click "here"where directed to view graphical proposal- it is in a clear power point type presentation. My be on the FCC desk, don't know, but I do know comments are being requested by the ARRL until Feb 19. If it has already been petitioned I do not know why they are doing this, but they are.
There may be some confusion abuot what the "band plan" announcement is about. The band plan is not the same thing as FCC band-mode allocation. There are already three rulemaking petitions at the FCC, that have been there for a long time. The Technician Enhancement, the "baud rate" limitation elimination, and the oldest one, the re-farming of 3600-3650 kHz back to data from voice. Those have already been proposed, they have been through their official FCC Comment period, and are pending FCC action. The ARRL "band plan" announcement assumes all three of those get approved. So, what the current "band plan" announcement does is to try to create a "voluntary" division of the data allocations, into narrow-band versus wide-band plus automatically controlled data stations (ACDS). It does not affect the three proposals that are already before the FCC. Specifically, it does not affect the 80 meter refarming, the Technician enhancement, or the baud rate limit elmination proposals that are already under consideration by the FCC. The ARRL has, within the past several months if I remember correctly, already appealed to the FCC to approve those three RMs. That indicates to me that they are not interested in changing those at this point. My guess (only a guess) is that what they'll use this so-called 'band plan" for, is to try to argue to the the FCC that all three of those RMs are tied together and therefore that all three should be approved together, rather than peicemeal as they were submitted.
Well you are certainly better versed than I on the previous proceedings between the ARRL and FCC. Thank you for your time in trying to clear that up- I'm still not understanding 100%, but trying to work on it- hi. My confusion was in the request for comments- like it was a live issue that needed to be addressed (by the ham community rather than the powers that be). I am fairly active and have loved the hobby since the early 80's. Want to enjoy, preserve and protect it, and will keep an eye for what happens next. Vy 73
These guys are pressuring the ARRL as was quoted by a few other people, here is proof. These maritime private boat owners are using the system to get email across, many of them have bootleg amateur calls from hams to get into the system. They think you're beyond enforcement sensor operating from the high seas, and they're saving money by not using their satellite phones
