Talk:Amateur radio frequency allocations

Replacement plan

The plan for this page is to replace the comparable section found at Amateur radio#Band_plans_and_frequency_allocations. The main article is far beyond Wikipedia guidelines for article length. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 20:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I put over at Talk:Amateur radio:

OK, it's done. Now we need to flesh out the new article. Ideally, it would look at ITU allocations by region, then representative national allocations, and finally national society bandplans. --N5UWY/9 - plaws 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

--N5UWY/9 - plaws 01:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I put a little more order into the information on this page (the former paragraph at the bottom was really just an non-bulleted list). Wish I had time to do more! VA7AJJ --Andrewjuren 21:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Band plan for all 3 regions

FCC Part 97 subpart D (97.301) lists the bandplans for all three regions as a nice table. The first and third columns of that table are substantially similar to what is here already. Would it be a good idea to link to that (done), or just copy it here? --ssd 13:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The regions

I don't know if dividing this list up by ITU regions is a good idea... I've kinda watched this article for a while and I haven't seen anything added to regions 1 and 3. Just links to get info elsewhere. I suggest we just eliminate the grouping by ITU regions altogether. I would rather see a list of all bands allocated to amateurs anywhere and listed with their widest frequency ranges allocated anywhere. Most of these bands link to their own articles now, As it stands now this article is 100% US-centric, and doesn't provide much info. Before I do something crazy, what are your opinions on this? Anonym1ty 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the regions are fine. It's US-centric because no one from outside the US has contributed. By organizing it by region, the attempt has been made to globalize it. Unfortunately, no one from outside Region 2 appears to have made the effort to contribute! --N5UWY/9 - plaws 16:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I (G3YMC) have just found this series of pages. It is incredibly US-centric!. Rather better would be a straight list of amateur bands here with wiki links to detailed ones for each one. I will attempt to expand some of the band pages but it will take time.Dsergeant 20:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to add the listings for the other regions, and create at least generic allocation tables for them. I know I would like to have the charts as a reference, especially when DXing. It's always nice to know where the other fellow is allowed to operate! I'd really appreciate it if someone could point me to some authoritative sources for the information. Thanks! - Joe Shupienis, W3BC 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, it occurs to me that there is a major difference between the frequencies allocated and the bandplans for those allocations. Hypothetically, several countries might allocate 160m from 1.8 to 2.0 MHz; however one country may split the band into phone and CW, another may split at a different frequency, based on emissions bandwidth, while a third may not split it at all and rely on its amateurs to abide by the region's (or that country's -- or the ARRL's[!]) bandplan!

Now what I've done so far in R1 is the R1 bandplan, with a country extension for UK on 60 m. But if were to follow this "rule" in R2, then the US regulated splits make the chart very cumbersome. Perhaps the best course is to make a "rule" that more than two additional lines or three bands per country gets the country its own chart.

If I were to show the frequencies allocated by region, the chart would be very simple: three boxes, end to end, but no info of any import. So I made the choice to superimpose each region's bandplan over the end-to-end bar. This poses a problem for those nations which don't folow their region's bandplan, eg: the US classwise distribution.

Any thoughts??? - Joe Shupienis, W3BC

Allocation Tables

OK, I did it. Using the RSGB band plan, I put allocation tables together. I believe this can be expanded for other countries -- if I can find another country's bandplan from Region 1, I'll give it a shot. The problem I forsee is that if one country's band-split differs from another's, that segment will have to be split, and all the table definitions re-edited. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if it was easy, it would have already been done :) ... At any rate, here is my first run at it. Please mangle as you see fit. - Joe Shupienis, W3BC 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work, I have corrected a few minor anomalies. The RSGB bandplans are identical to the Region 1 IARU bandplans which can be found at http://www.iaru.org/bandplans.html and these should apply to ALL region 1 countries. You have added the DL ones indicating they are allowed all modes everywhere - this is not true, they also follow the region 1 ones and cannot (for instance) use SSB in the cw/data only sections.Dsergeant 09:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I'll remove the erroneous information, and perhaps replace the the country flags with "IARU Region 1 Bandplan" or somesuch. Hmmm... maybe R I, II and III can end up as all one table, with a separate one for US? Any thoughts? - Joe Shupienis, W3BC 17:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's now beginning to look quite good. I wouldn't guarantee there are not some variations across Region 1, in particular with say 160m where some countries only have a limited allocation. Others can add them... I don't think it is a good idea to try and combine the three regions as there are a lot of differences. And for myself I know very little about what happens down under in Region 3! By the way I notice that Region 2 has 'meters' and Region 1 'metres', not sure we should mix the US and UK spellings on a single page (I know which I prefer...), but will let WP protocol decide. Dsergeant 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the spelling as well, but wasn't too worried as the spelling represents the domininant group of English speakers in that region. Trying to make it one or the other would likely lead to a dispute over which is correct. --StuffOfInterest 20:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and encouragement! It appears to me that even if we can combine the three regions, the convoluted US allocations would still have to stand alone. :( Sometimes it's hard to maintain NPoV, but we can try. As to meters/metres, as I recall we Yanks and you Brits fought a war or two over such trifling matters HI HI. Perhaps the correct answer is to use the SI abbreviation, "m" and be done with it. Or "1.8 MHz" instead of "160 m". I don't know, but the charts are easy enough to change.

Once again, thanks for the kindness, and I hope someday we meet up on the air. 73 OM! - Joe Shupienis, W3BC 20:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this article should focus on the ITU worldwide allocations with only minor references to country-specific band plans. Thoughts? Anonym1ty 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good in theory. Ideally the national band plans would be in their own articles. In practice, however, many of these articles would be too small to make a good case for standing on their own. I'd say to keep them all in one place for now and we can always split them off into separate articles later. Perhaps deal with ITU worldwide at the top and then a region by region break down with a nation by nation towards the bottom. Work from general to specific and then we can always flake the specific off to separate articles later if there is enough material. One way to get enough material later is to go into the history of the allocations in each country. --StuffOfInterest 23:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Now we're talking! Good ideas all around. To make it work, a standard color code will have to apply to all circumstances. Perhaps the resistor order (Black, brown, red, orange, etc.) ordered by bandwidth (CW, PSK, <200 Hz = Black, etc.)???

Next, I completely agree on the suggested organization; First start with region edge to edge coverage, then bandplans and finally country-specific data. 60 meters is the only oddball that might not fit this scheme. Should I change the headings to 80m, 40m, etc to eliminate any language issues?

It was difficult for me as a US amateur to grasp that the rest of the world is not restricted by their governments to one particular mode on each particular frequency, but instead it is determined by gentlemen's agreement... I guess it takes gentlemen to abide by such agreements, something sadly missing from about half the US, hence the FCC has to step in and lay down the law...73, - Joe Shupienis, W3BC 13:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

(rethreading) Joe, first off, great job on the editing you have been doing! Next, plesae fix your signature. Without any link back to you in it, it is like you are leaving unsigned comments. Continuing, take a look at WP:HAM when you get a chance. It would be great to have another name on the list.

Now, to the meat of the topic. Standardizing the color codes is important. As long as it is consistent I'm not too worried. Since the US appears to be moving from mode to bandwidth allocation (if ARRL gets its way) we'll probably need colors (or patterns) for both. I would actually suggest that we come up with a standard set of colors to be used across all of the HAM articles. The color/pattern settings could be built into a collection of templates so that if we decide to change a color later it can be modified in one place and pushed across all articles. Something similiar was done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington Metro to standardize line colors across articles. Having the colors/patterns standardized will help if we start pushing some national band plans into separate articles later. Perhaps WP:HAM is a better place to discuss this. I'll start a thread over there pointing back to this post. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)