The email below was sent to Amateur Radio Newsline this evening. _____ From: Joel Harrison [mailto:w5zn@arrl.org] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:59 PM To: 'wa6itf@arnewsline.org' Cc: 'newsline@ix.netcom.com' Subject: Inaccurate Statements in ARNewsline Editor, ARNewsline, Recently, a story was published in Amateur Radio Newline calling attention to a CQ editorial that made several accusations against ARRL but was based on rumor and false information. It is unfortunate that you chose to publish the story without even contacting ARRL to determine if there was any validity to it, or as a minimum to seek out the facts in this matter. The December CQ editorial is based on the mistaken assumption that the new IARU Region 2 band plan is an ARRL initiative. It is not, nor is it in anyway a vehicle to achieve regulation by bandwidth. That premise is based on a false rumor that you have unfortunately fallen prey to. The genesis of the Region 2 band plan, available at http://www.iaru-r2.org/band-plan/, is actually based on the band plan adopted by IARU Region 1 at its conference in Davos, Switzerland in September 2005 and available at http://www.iaru-r1.org/Spectrumbp.htm. If you compare the two you will see there are striking similarities, including most of the features that you incorrectly attribute to the ARRL which has no standing or membership in IARU Region 1. It happens that the ARRLs regulation by bandwidth petition, the now-withdrawn RM-11306, also drew on the Region 1 band plan. This is acknowledged on page 10 of the petition, which is available at http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf. The similarities between RM-11306 and the Region 2 band plan are the result of having some common roots, but the two are not otherwise related. In particular, the Region 2 band plan is not a vehicle for achieving what has not yet been achieved through FCC rulemaking. ARRL representatives did participate in the discussion of the band plan in Committee B/C at the Region 2 Conference in Brasilia in mid-September and I cast the vote on behalf of the ARRL for the plenary meeting to adopt the committees recommendation. I did so knowing that the new band plan isnt perfect committee work inevitably involves compromise and accepting the views of others that are different from your own but also knowing that it is a significant improvement over the old one. In any case, band plans are simply voluntary guidelines and do not have the force or significance of regulations. CQ is well aware of this, since participants in their contests routinely violate band plans with impunity but risk disqualification or worse if they knowingly violate FCC rules. The continuing support from CQ for the concept of regulation by bandwidth is greatly appreciated. The ARRL Board remains of the same view. Regulation by bandwidth is essential to the orderly introduction of new digital modes into the HF bands. However, the ARRL will not be pursuing rulemaking until some degree of consensus can be achieved in the amateur community. It is particularly important to avoid unintended consequences for traditional modes. The original RM-11306 petition accomplished that through the combination of a specific provision for AM and the replacement of the existing FCC Part 97 definition of bandwidth which currently is based on occupied bandwidth, with the definition of necessary bandwidth. The distinction is important because it avoids the difficult issue of measuring the actual bandwidth of transmitted signals. By definition, the necessary bandwidth of an SSB signal is 2700 Hz. If the rules specified a bandwidth limit of 2700 Hz, an SSB signal would comply regardless of its actual bandwidth as long as an existing rule, §97.307(a), also was observed. This is not a change from the present situation. The editorial properly credits the ARRL with having conducted an open process of soliciting input during the three-year period of development of RM-11306. As one of the 39 member-societies of IARU Region 2 the ARRL will, as always, continue to openly work to improve the Region 2 band planning process prior to the next conference and to give its members ample opportunity to offer comments and suggestions. 73, Joel Harrison, W5ZN ARRL President