http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...taunch-opponent-of-consumer-protection-rules/ I tried doing some Google-Fu about his position on amateur radio, but I couldn't find anything significant.
Yeah, it looks like it's Commissioner Pai for Chairman, and here's the blueprint for change, adopted by the Trump transition team. The plan involves eventually closing the FCC completely and transferring essential functions to other agencies like NTIA and FTC. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2388723 The majority plan was said to dovetail with comments from Eisenach and Layton to Congress in 2014 as AEI scholars. Their two main conclusions were that "the historical silo-based approach to communications regulation is inapposite to the modern communications ecosystem. Second, the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC,” or “Commission”) functions are largely duplicative of those of other agencies." “I think it’s encouraging that the Trump transition team is looking to do more than tinker around the edges with respect to reforming the FCC and communications policy," said Free State Foundation president Randolph May. "And it’s encouraging that the incoming Trump Administration apparently agrees. There is an opportunity now, not to be wasted, to make some fundamental changes in the FCC’s structure and the way it operates. Of course, Congress will need to be involved in effecting some of the changes, and some can be accomplished by the agency itself. Those favoring the status quo with its institutional pro-regulatory bias will try to characterize any meaningful changes as ‘radical,” but what truly is radical is not to acknowledge the need to adopt substantial reforms in the face of such substantial changes in the marketplace." [broadcastingcable.com]
That's an interesting concept, for two reasons. First, that's where FCC came from originally -- Department of Commerce and Interstate Commerce Commission (via FRC as an intermediary, IIRC). So now they are talking about reconsolidation into similar agencies. Second, it would be interesting to consider whether such a reintegration would result in more (or less) legitimate enforcement of Title 47 rules than we have today. I can see arguments both ways, but I wonder if anyone is familiar with the enforcement success history of the NTIA, FTC, etc. Among other things, I wonder if being a function of FTC might make it more likely that we will get enforcement related to the importation of poor-quality consumer goods that cause interference to us on HF and VHF?
I can't see how it could be any worse. It might be better. On the other hand, they might make ham radio a hands-off service, more or less like CB. Wait; what am I saying? CB is already in better shape than the ham bands. I guess we'll just have to wait like kids on Christmas to see what's actually under the tree.
I'm pretty sure that the VHF & UHF bands will be taken away from U.S. amateurs and re-allocated(auctioned?), especially if there is money involved.
No basis yet.....just a feeling. Perhaps even wrong. But those allocations - i.e. 2m & 70cm - have been threatened many times in the past. And in the view of some, it is a blatant waste of resources to allow them to be kept & used by amateurs when there are those who would be willing to pay money for the use of such frequencies. Hope that I'm way off base here, but we shall see.
440Mhz would be useful for trunking space because the wavelength is short, and the ham band is enormous. I'm not sure what other real-estate we have that people want. 2m is too small and the wavelength too long for most modern users. 220 maybe? It's also pretty small.
I'm just wondering WHY the FCC hasn't been "TAKEN TO COURT" over the "ASSUMPTION" that THEY can (SELL) PUBLIC DOMAIN FREQUENCIES in the first place!!!
I suspect the main reason is that the FCC operates under Administrative Law, which can't be reviewed by any court. As long as they operate within the bounds of their enabling legislation, and as long as their rule-making process is self-consistent, a lawsuit against them isn't an option. That's the main idea behind Administrative Law.
That's a possibility, although PS organizations already have quite a bit of spectrum available... but, who knows? You can sue the FCC to overturn a rule or an order in the federal court of appeals in DC, and you can sue for negligence under the FTCA, but those are narrow windows of opportunity with many restrictions. That's been a HUGE problem as federal agencies have become larger and more powerful and more arrogant, run by lobbyist/lawyers who have often ignored the will of congress, abusing taxpayers and small businesses, while stifling innovation and investment, using a kind of 'noblesse oblige' by quoting their own dicta and faulty orders, which were never proven in court due to consent decrees developed by the agencies themselves, in turn creating more precedents and dicta. In essence, our federal agencies, instead of being subservient to congress and the courts, became authorities unto themselves, unaccountable to congress, the courts, and the people. This mess was never envisioned by our founding fathers, who designed 3 branches which rested with the Executive (the President), the Courts (the Supreme Court being the highest), and the Legislature (Congress and Senate). This set of behaviors allowed administrative agencies to dodge review by the federal courts and dodge accountability to congress and the American people. Remember Eric Holder (DOJ) pleading the 5th about Fast and Furious; Lois Lerner (IRS) pleading the 5th about targeting conservative charities; Kathleen Sibelius (HHS) stonewalling congress about Obamacare; remember Petzel and Shinseki (VA) who retired and resigned over the VA scandal, and; Tom Wheeler (FCC) who argued before congress that he wasn't required to reveal what was in the Net Neutrality Rules prior to passing them because FCC regulations allowed him to remain silent? Congress delegates authority to executive agencies (FCC, IRS, DEA, EPA) who are presumed to be experts. Congress writes laws called statutes and the agencies promulgate rules based on their interpretations of the statutes, called regulations. The rules should be consistent with the US Constitution, the statutes, the intent of congress, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Privacy Act, and the will of the people, via the comment period before rule-making. Two legal doctrines evolved which allowed executive agencies to evade full review by the courts. The doctrines allowed deference to the agencies, and federal judges couldn't contradict agency "expertise" because of these legal doctrines. The agencies became too powerful and too political, and the agencies began to ignore or patronize congress and to avoid legal scrutiny in the courts. Many of the agency interpretations were so far away from honest expertise and the true intent of congress that the legislature decided to take away the deference owed the agencies under the two legal doctrines known as Auer and Chevron. Therefore, congress just passed H.R. 5 - THE REGULATORY ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017. Part of H.R. 5 is Title II: Separation of Powers Restoration Act. Title II repeals the Chevron and Auer doctrines to end judicial deference to bureaucrats’ statutory and regulatory interpretations. In the 114th Congress, the House passed similar legislation under a rule (H.R. 4768) by a vote of 240-171. Long story short, assuming this is also passed in the Senate (and it's expected to) Congress will regain real oversight power and the courts will no longer have to defer to politicized BS and agency dicta enabled via Auer and Chevron. The agencies' dicta ran over their dogma to the detriment of their own drivel. https://policy.house.gov/legislative/bills/hr-5-regulatory-accountability-act-2017
But if Trump wants to put the power into the hands of the people instead of government, wouldn't it make sense to keep or even grow the scope of those bands for use by the public domain in the event of emergency functions and reporting? HF is well and good, but keeping a local eye on a situation has it's benefits.
