I've used the text below to pass the word among hams about the IARU Region 2 bandplan... seems reasonably effective.

I wrote to express my opinion to the ARRL (as our rep to IARU) at the following addresses:

w5zn@arrl.org, n3kn@arrl.org, k5ur@arrl.org, w6rod@arrl.org, k1zz@arrl.org, w4ri@arrl.org, k1ce@arrl.net

I also wrote to my ARRL Division representatives as shown at http://www.arrl.org/divisions/

Then I wrote to these officials of IARU and IARU-Region2...

iaru@iaru.org,leandror@bellsouth.net,w6rod@iaru.org,hp1dj@sinfo.net,9y4ne

d@tstt.net.tt,ve2ka@iaru.org,co2rp@jovenclub.cu,gudiel@comtelsa.com,pt2ad

m@pobox.com,lu2ah@szama.com,LPrice@iaru.org,tellam@iaru.org,rleandro@cant

v.net,dsumner@arrl.org

- - - - - - - - - -

The IARU has adopted, effective Jan 1 2008, a new "voluntary band plan"

for Region 2 that places restrictive limitations on transmitted signal bandwidths and

overlooks commonly-used modes and practices on the bands 160 - 10m. See...

http://www.iaru-regionii.org/Region_2_MF__HF_Bandplan_Annex__1_2008.pdf

I am VERY much against such limits - tight regulation and restrictions

like these goes completely against the experimental and innovative

aspects of ham radio.

The plan as published does not match common practice on the bands and

would likely be ignored by thousands of operators.

But, voluntary or not, my position remains that we need no such plans

restricting operation by bandwidth. Bandplans like this have a history

of increasing the stress among amateurs with arguments and

finger-pointing. And voluntary ones tend to become ever more

"official" over time, so I think it is vital that we not err on the

side of restriction and limitation which could hinder our future

communication options.

Please do all you can to stop or at least modify the IARU Region 2 bandplan.

Steve WD8DAS

- - - - - - - - - -