Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 27, No 40
on
October 10, 2008
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
Defending and enhancing access to the Amateur Radio spectrum is the
primary mission of the ARRL. According to ARRL Chief Executive Officer
David Sumner, K1ZZ, the League has not only protected the bands, but has
also added several new ones, despite exponential growth in the variety
and number of radio frequency devices in the hands of consumers and
businesses. "Even our most disappointing defeat -- the loss of the
bottom 40 percent of the 220 MHz band some two decades ago -- gave us
upgraded status, from shared to exclusive, in the remaining 60 percent
of the band," he said.
Sumner said that amateurs will soon have cause to celebrate: March 29,
2009 marks the date that high-powered international broadcasting
stations will be removed from the heart of the 40 meter band. "We are
working with the broadcasters to make sure the change takes place as
agreed at the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC)," Sumner
said. "While it's probably too much to expect 100 percent instant
compliance, we know that the responsible broadcasters are preparing to
move out of the 7100-7200 kHz segment -- doubling the size of the
worldwide 40 meter band and making this popular band more useful than
it's been in 70 years."
At the WRC in 2007, the Amateur Radio Service earned its first
low-frequency (LF) allocation, 135.7-137.8 kHz; however, here in the
United States, amateurs will not gain access to this new band
automatically when the Final Acts of the conference take effect on
January 1, 2009. "We must petition the FCC to implement the allocation,
and we know the petition will not be granted without an argument --
because we've been down this road before," Sumner explained. "Twice in
the past, the ARRL has sought an LF allocation. Both times our request
was opposed by the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) -- the same
organization that has opposed our efforts to protect radio services from
Broadband over Power Lines (BPL)
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/ interference."
Sumner recounted that the ARRL's fight against BPL interference has been
going on for six years. "Last year, in the wake of Federal
Communications Commission decisions that did not adequately protect
licensed radiocommunication services from interference from BPL systems,
the ARRL even went to court to challenge the FCC and won!" he said
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200804/06-1343-1112979.pdf. "On April 25, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit confirmed what the ARRL has been saying for years
about how the FCC was handling the BPL interference issue: FCC prejudice
tainted the rulemaking process."
On July 9, the Court went one step further, ordering the FCC to pay the
ARRL more than $6000 toward the League's costs in pursuing the appeal.
"While this is a tiny fraction of our total investment," Sumner said,
"the award affirmed that -- contrary to the 'spin' the FCC had been
trying to give to the Court's decision -- the ARRL substantially
prevailed in its appeal."
Calling the Court's decision "a tremendous victory for radio amateurs
and other licensed users of the radio spectrum -- indeed, for anyone who
cares about the federal administrative process," Sumner said that the
remand does not guarantee that the FCC will correct its errors. "We face
another round of technical arguments," he said. "No doubt the FCC's
technical staff, many of whom want to do the right thing, will remain
under heavy pressure to ignore the laws of physics and give preference
to wishful thinking once again. When the FCC reopens the BPL proceeding
as the Court has ordered, we must leave no room for these technical
issues to be settled on anything other than technical grounds. There's
more work to do. It is only through the support of thousands of ARRL
members and friends that we have managed to come this far. But it took
great effort, including our frontal assault on the flawed FCC
proceedings, to get their attention. Together we can celebrate all that
we have accomplished on the BPL front over the past six years!"
BPL is not the only challenge facing the League, Sumner said, pointing
out that preparations for the upcoming WRC in 2011 are already underway.
The key WRC-11 issues for Amateur Radio are:
* A possible allocation near 500 kHz. This would provide amateur's first
access to the lower part of the medium frequency (MF) band. Sumner said
a "600 meter" band offers exciting possibilities for reliable groundwave
communication through the application of digital signal processing
techniques to a portion of the spectrum that is as old as radio itself.
* Defense against a push to allocate spectrum between 3 and 50 MHz for
oceanographic radar applications.
* Support of an initiative to provide better protection for radio
services against interference from short-range radio devices.
* Consideration of regulatory measures for software-defined radio and
cognitive radio systems, which offer both opportunities and threats to
existing radio services.
* Selection of agenda items for the WRC to follow (tentatively planned
for 2015).
"ARRL staff and volunteers are hard at work on your behalf, teaming up
with International Amateur Radio Union (IARU) volunteers from around the
globe to build the strongest possible case for Amateur Radio at WRC-11,"
he said, calling on all amateurs to help protect Amateur Radio's
precious spectrum. "Once again, your financial commitment to spectrum
defense is vital to our ability to protect your access to radio
spectrum. Your contribution to the 2009 Spectrum Defense Fund will
provide the financial resources required for us to represent you at
WRC-11, and to respond when the FCC reacts to the BPL remand decision."
To help in the ARRL's ongoing mission to protect our valuable spectrum,
please visit the ARRL Office of Development's Web page. You can also
reach ARRL Chief Development Office Mary Hobart, K1MMH at 860-594-0397
or via e-mail
k1mmh@arrl.org;. New special gifts are being offered for
contributions, including a new 2009 mug and pin. More details on thank
you gifts can be found on the donation form for the Spectrum Defense
Fund.
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 27, No. 40
October 10, 2008
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 11, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The day that I begin trusting the League to "protect the amateur spectrum" will be the same day that I hire Hannibal Lecter as my valet.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by N4CQR on October 11, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
So then what other entity would you recommend or support to address spectrum issues?
Is there another organization that you know of that can better act on behalf of the radio amateur?
While I admit the League has made some mistakes from time to time; They have done far more for amateur radio than against it.
To that end I support the League.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 11, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hams need to learn to protect themselves, and not hope that the League will do it for them. The League corrupts everything with which it comes in contact.
|
|   |
|
Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Pave Paws isn't proving to be that much of a threat, at least on the east coast. In California, things seem to be different. But by some reports some hams out there, instead of trying to work with the military are trying to go around the problem or defy the requests of the primary frequency users to retain their machines just as they are. Ham radio, after all, IS A SECONDARY user of that spectrum.
I agree with 'WBJ that hams have to protect themselves, but I definitely do NOT agree with him about the ARRL. There are people who are members of organizations that do not agree with everything the organization does, but in each endeavour the organization is striving to represent the views of the majority of the members WHO SPEAK UP TO BE HEARD.
If you don't agree with something your organization does, just don't grumble about it, speak out TO THE ORGANIZATION. If first, you're a member, and second, inform the organization of your views, then you can grumble. Just don't shoot yourself in the foot doing it!
The ARRL are trying to preserve what we have. What is wrong about that? Or do you want them to agree with the money managers and the powers that be and let our spectrum be taken from us? Think about it.....
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Ham radio, after all, IS A SECONDARY user of that spectrum."
Chris, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have been unable to find any such language in Part 97. I've also asked this question of a couple of other hams who are quite familiar with Part 97, and they couldn't find it, either. Perhaps, however, we overlooked it. Could you please tell me in what section of Part 97 this limitation appears?
Maybe I'm just too suspicious of the Commission, but after having Riley Hollingsworth make up non-existent rules for 10 years, I have reason to be.
Thank you.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes, more "work" but little in the way of actual results. With all the promotion, why isn't there anything "new" in amateur radio technologically or practically. Yes, Amateur spectrum is under pressure, but WHY?
Simple: Citizen Competition...
If the ARRL would try to 'promote' use of upper spectrum for modes (like OFDM, SMS, video, etc) other than analog, repeaters & older technologies, it would prove much harder to "lose" anything like 220-222MHz, 430-440MHz losses... We will lose everything above 450.0MHz eventually, we have lost it already practically... Only improvement can be with the 1970-vinatge rules...
The competition is license-free & numbers in the 10's or (possibly even 100+) of millions nationwide!
Raf
wifidx@gmail.com
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Chris, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have been
> unable to find any such language in Part 97. I've
> also asked this question of a couple of other hams
> who are quite familiar with Part 97, and they
> couldn't find it, either
Did you really actually look at Part 97? There is a section called "Sharing Requirements" that is crystal clear about the responsibilities hams have on various frequencies allocated to the Amateur Radio Service.
From: http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/d-301.html#303
97.303 (b) No amateur station transmitting in the 1900-2000 kHz segment, the 70 cm band, the 33 cm band, the 23 cm band, the 13 cm band, the 9 cm band, the 5 cm band, the 3 cm band, the 24.05-24.25 GHz segment, the 76-77.5 GHz segment, the 78-81 GHz segment, the 136-141 GHz segment, and the 241-248 GHz segment shall not cause harmful interference to, nor is protected from interference due to the operation of, the Federal radiolocation service.
It took me about 30 seconds to find it when I looked. What difficulties did you encounter trying to find it in the rules?
I would say that your friends' self characterization of being quite familiar with the rules is somewhat inaccurate if they weren't aware that there is a major section of the rules titled "Frequency Sharing Requirements." Of course, they could have been confused by the double negative in the language used in the text and believed that no station shall not cause interference, essentially saying that they must. :-) (I'll flag that to Dan Henderson here at HQ.)
Perhaps we need to have some practical test of the ability to find major sections in the FCC rules. :-) Perhaps Riley was not as misinformed as you believe him to have been...
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 13, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
God, Ed, you are SO STUPID! Besides the regulation containing a double negative which makes it totally invalid (and remember, regulations are construed AGAINST the drafter), it says NOTHING about hams being secondary users. This is just more ARRL propaganda. All it says is that hams aren't supposed to cause harmful interference to the federal radio location service. Hams aren't supposed to cause harmful interference to each other, either. Does that mean that YOUR right to use 75-meter SSB is "secondary" to MY right to use that band and mode because you MIGHT cause "harmful interference" to my signal? Of course not!
And even if the Commission DID claim that an amateur was causing harmful interference to the federal radio location service, due process requires that he would be entitled to have a warning notice, to deny the charges, and to have a hearing over the issues of: (1) whether there was actual interference; and (2) whether the interference was harmful.
This is not what that ass, Riley Hollingsworth, did. He curtailed the rights of repeater owners under theirl license grants in the 70-cm. band without any proof whatsoever that there was any actual interference. This constitutes an illegal license modification without due process of law.
So when are you ARRL guys going to stop spreading your lies?
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thank you SO much, Ed, for making my point much more clearly than I could ever have done. Obviously, from what you have stated, the League's concept of "protecting the ham spectrum" is to bend over and let the Commission illegally modify the licenses of 440-mhz. repeater owners during their terms by calling the hams' license grants "secondary" (even though 97.303 says nothing of the kind), without due process of law, and without any proof that there was any actual interference to the federal radio location service, or that any such interference as did exist was harmful in nature. I think we are starting to get a good idea now about exactly how the League operates.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bill, you're skewed rant about the wording of the regulation just shows how far out of it you really are. Ed hare got to your rant before I did--and he saved me the trouble of looking it up (Thanks, Ed) but I would have to say that you better learn how to read--and comprehend.
The language that we're secondary users of the 70 cm band is a simple way of saying we cannot cause interference to the primary users of the same band, and of a different service altogether, a federal service--military radiolocation. That is the regulation Ed quoted.
Now to your baloney about an amateur interfering with another amateur. Since primary/secondary user interference is determined by the radio service, and both amateur operators are of the same service, how can there be any primary/secondary user interference? There can't be since both users have equal privileges.
You, sir, are a couple of bottles short of a six-pack, and the rest of those bottles are filled with flat beer. Now be a good nut and go get your meds.....
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 14, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
BTW Bill, go ahead and attack--I'm one of the ARRL Field Service section staff here in Eastern Mass., and even though I've been critical of the ARRL at times, they've done more work to try to protect the amateur spectrum and service than any other group in existence in the US. Probably its time you woke up from your dream world and saw the facts.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chris, you're just plain wrong. First of all, 97.303 says absolutely nothing about amateurs being "secondary users", or any other radio service being "primary users" of the 70-cm. band. That is a total concoction by the League. Those words simply don't appear in the regulation.
Second, in the PAVE/PAWS fiasco, Riley Hollingsworth never even ALLEGED that there was any actual, harmful interference to the federal radio location service. He was just afraid that there MIGHT be such interference. However, the regulation says there must be actual, harmful interference. But rather than stand up for amateurs' rights, Hollingsworth bent over and illegally modified these hams' licenses during their terms. And this guy was supposed to be a FRIEND of ham radio? With friends like that, we don't need enemies!
Read the Communications Act, Chris! It says that we are entitled to due process (notice and hearing) before the Commission can modify our licenses during their terms! Do you have some problem with that? Why is the League always claiming otherwise?
The real question is, why does the League go along with the Commission when it tries to illegally limit amateurs' rights under their licenses? The reason is that the League doesn't really give a damn if hams are illegally harassed by the Commission. All they care about is grandstanding and trying to get new members. When the operating privileges of a League member are under illegal attack by the Commission, the League doesn't care, because defending that amateur's rights won't get them any new members. Ask me how I know. I was a member of the League when Hollingsworth began sending me his bullshit warning notices. I'll never have anything to do with the League again.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by WW7KE on October 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Check section 2.106 of the FCC regs. It's that section that states who is primary and who's secondary. Primary users are in ALL CAPS, while secondary users are in title-case. A link to a PDF file of the section is below (all 133 pages of it).
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/octqtr/pdf/47cfr2.106.pdf
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W6WBJ on October 15, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Section 2.106 of WHAT PART of the Commission's Regs?
Only Part 97 has anything to do with ham radio.
Sec. 97.3 of Part 97 contains all of the definitions that pertain to amateur radio.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Chris, you're just plain wrong. First of all,
> 97.303 says absolutely nothing about amateurs
> being "secondary users", or any other radio service
> being "primary users" of the 70-cm. band. That is a
> total concoction by the League. Those words simply
> don't appear in the regulation.
Sigh... ITU-R and CFR 47 Part 2 both define primary and secondary users. That definition is used in the language of Sec. 97.303, and the meaning of those words seem t be crystal clear to nearly everyone.
Your analogy about hams on 75 meters SSB interfering with each other is flawed. Under the FCC rules that can protect licensees from interfering with each other, licensees do not have to accept harmful interference from each other. That is an apples and oranges comparison that simply doesn't apply.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by W1RFI on October 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Only Part 97 has anything to do with ham radio.
Absolutely incorrect. Many sections of CFR 47 apply to all services regulated by the FCC. Sections 0, 1 and 2 are overarching rules.
Perhaps you could consult a competent communications attorney to help you better understand.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK Bill, lets look at what you said--
>>First of all, 97.303 says absolutely nothing about amateurs being "secondary users", or any other radio service being "primary users" of the 70-cm. band. That is a total concoction by the League. Those words simply don't appear in the regulation.<<
Stop harping on the primary user/secondary user thing, will you? The regs say we can't cause unnecessary interference with the federal/military users on the frequencies. That is why we're being asked--ASKED--to cooperate and try to coexist, before we're ordered to leave the frequencies clear for the military in the Pave Paws area. And make no mistake, they can do so--and with NO due process.
>>Second, in the PAVE/PAWS fiasco, Riley Hollingsworth never even ALLEGED that there was any actual, harmful interference to the federal radio location service. He was just afraid that there MIGHT be such interference. However, the regulation says there must be actual, harmful interference. But rather than stand up for amateurs' rights, Hollingsworth bent over and illegally modified these hams' licenses during their terms. And this guy was supposed to be a FRIEND of ham radio? With friends like that, we don't need enemies!<<
How many more 'facts' are you going to make up? Hollingsworth never alleged anything. The Air Force stated--not alleged--STATED that there was harmful interference with the upgraded Pave Paws equipment. The FCC and the ARRL stepped in to try to keep our operating privileges on those frequencies in place. The Air Force wanted us off the frequencies--and BTW, we have no 'rights' to them. Where do you get your left field ideas?
>>Read the Communications Act, Chris! It says that we are entitled to due process (notice and hearing) before the Commission can modify our licenses during their terms! Do you have some problem with that? Why is the League always claiming otherwise?<<
Where is the individual licence modification--because that is what type 'modification' you're talking about. They're not telling you you cannot operate, just that the power must be reduced so the interference is eliminated--on a large scale in a certain area. That is not a 'license modification', it is a 'band modification'--and the FCC or the NTIA doesn't have to modify our licenses in any way for it to take effect.
>>The real question is, why does the League go along with the Commission when it tries to illegally limit amateurs' rights under their licenses?<<
The answer is because the asked for power reduction isn't illegal at all. And if the problem isn't rectified, them kicking us off the band entirely in that geographic area won't be illegal either.
>>The reason is that the League doesn't really give a damn if hams are illegally harassed by the Commission. All they care about is grandstanding and trying to get new members.<<
That is your opinion--and you're alone with it.
>>When the operating privileges of a League member are under illegal attack by the Commission, the League doesn't care, because defending that amateur's rights won't get them any new members. Ask me how I know. I was a member of the League when Hollingsworth began sending me his bullshit warning notices. I'll never have anything to do with the League again.<<
The League cares, because that is how they get new members--by listening to hams. They just don't listen to people who call them down, which is why they probably won't listen to you. That is how you know--but the 'knowing' in your case is knowing -nothing-. And what is the baloney about Hollingsworth sending you a notice being the reason you dropped your membership? The only thing Hollingsworth had to do with the league is they're both concerned with ham radio--from different positions. That is like saying you won't shop a particular store for parts for your car because a traffic cop gave you a ticket. That is just idiotic.
|
|   |
|
RE: Spectrum Defense: 'More Work To Do':
|
|
|
by K1CJS on October 16, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Bill, just give it up, will you? It's plain that you have ideas and information that just aren't in line with the law and the real facts. Your interpretations are flawed in too many areas.
|
|   |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
ARISS Contact on Amateur Television and YouTube:
Two Canadian Stations on 500kHz:
Eagle Radio Ham Honored for Long Service:
Bright Spot -- Ray Grob NN8R:
K6VVA's FCC Petition For Rulemaking (Identity Protection):
|