On Oct 18, 3:57?pm, wrote:
On Oct 16, 1:35 pm, wrote:

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 USA is just one of several dozen countries in Region II.
Most of
them have completely different national bandplans, and none
of them
correspond very closely with FCC mode-driven allocations.

They don't have to.

The point I was making is that the IARU Region 2 bandplan is supposed
to be a plan for the entire Region. Yet it denies
AM operation on all but two small slices of two bands, regardless
of what FCC regulations or our national bandplan allows.

If I operate AM on 40 meters (say, 7290) during the daytime, is it bad
amateur practice because it's contrary to the IARU bandplan?
Or is it good amateur practice because it's in compliance with the
ARRL bandplan?

It's one thing to say that AM operation (or any mode) should
center around a certain frequency - that's what bandplans are
all about.

It's a very different thing to say there is no room at all for AM
on seven of the nine HF/MF amateur bands (60 isn't really a
"band") even though it's allowed by FCC regulations on eight
of those nine bands.

It would be
pretty arrogant to suggest that all those other countries
should bring
their bandplans into line with Part 97.

I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying is that national and regional bandplans should not
contradict each other.

It would be a simple matter to add a note saying that where AM is
permitted by national regulations, it should center its operation on
certain frequencies.

And if it is "arrogant" to suggest that other countries
bring their bandplans into line with Part 97, isn't it
equally arrogant for other countries to declare the
use of a popular mode by US amateurs to be
bad amateur practice?

Or to put it simply:

Why isn't there any room for AM on 160, 40, 20, 17, 15 or 12 meters?

73 de Jim, N2EY