H.R. 607 "Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011" threatens part of 70cm band

The Society of Broadcast Engineers issued a legislative alert to its members this week. A Bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on February 10, states that within 10 years after the Act is adopted, the entirety of the paired spectrum between 420-440 MHz and 450-470 MHz must be auctioned by the FCC for commercial use. This includes the Broadcast Auxilliary Services (BAS) allocation at 450-451 MHz and 455-456 MHz. There is no proposed replacement spectrum for displaced BAS licensees. Of interest to hams would be that it also includes the 430-440 Mhz portion of the 70cm ham band often used for satelite and weak signal work.
The spectrum targeted includes the 450-451 and 455-456 mhz sections which are used heavily by commercial radio broadcasters for remote pick-ups, as well as by many other civilian and defense users.
The Bill was introduced by Representative Peter King, (R-NY) who serves as Chair of the House Homeland Security Committee. The "Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011," has ten cosponsors as of now, including members of both political parties.

 

Have to wonder what, if anything, this would do to ReconRobotics. Weren't their units using some of these frequencies?? It be real interesting if the FCC OK'd their use of part of this band, and now Congress is trying to auction it off!

 

Any way to stop this? I know I am new to this, but there has to be 100's of thousands of 2 M, 70 cm gear out there, HTs Mobiles, repeaters, high end bases for sattelite work. Has anyone though of the impact to the ham community? Or the impact it will have on the new owners of this spectrum?

 

Write or call your representative at http://house.gov .

 

I can't believe the ARRL doesn't have a link with a form letter so tat we can all canvass our Senators and Representatives. I think I will ALSO write the ARRL, in addition to the politicians!

73's

Dave
KF7MJQ

 

It's like deja vu all over again. Seems like this is about the third or fourth thread about this in the past few days.

 

well I suspect they will since they said they would. Read the whole article on the ARRL web site...
http://www.arrl.org/news/spectrum-management-bill-threatens-amateur-frequencies

“As we continue to track the progress of HR 607, I urge ARRL members to watch for further information about the bill on the ARRL website,” Henderson said. “When that additional information is released, it will include a request to contact your representative and express opposition to HR 607, as long as it includes a provision to auction off any Amateur Radio spectrum for commercial use.

 

in fact, they just did:

http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-asks-members-to-write-in-opposition-to-hr-607

 

http://www.arrl.org/hr-607

 

Actually the ARRL has a link to the story about this on their home page, sent out a notice about it days ago in the E-mail newsletters, and is preparing a form letter (although you do not need to use their form) to send to the ARRL lobbyist in WA who will "hand carry" the thousands of letters received over to the appropriate members. Nothing will happen for a while on this (it is congress after all) but we need to get it fixed at the first opportunity. Before they start hearing from people (contributors) who want to 'buy' this spectrum. Most likely some staffer did look at a repeater directory or ask someone what frequency the hams used and was told 440-450 and that is why they left it out. But the rest of 420-440 is used for a lot of other stuff that a causal user or inquiry may not have revealed. I don't think Peter King is so stupid that he would try to take spectrum from either broadcasters or amateurs, so giving him the benefit of the doubt I go with the staff not researching it enough. I don't know about any of the other committee members, but typically they do no research of their own, just get their names on bills to show they are doing something. Then when a squeaky wheel turns up they look more closely at the issues. Broadcasters use a few frequencies just above our band and they will be upset about this as well. They may have more money to spend on lobbying than the ARRL does and it can only help us to have attention directed to the issue.

Writing your representative directly usually takes weeks to months before they get the mail due to security checks. Most Email goes to spam, but you never know what gets through. Probably have a better shot at contacting staffers. Or if you live where they have a local office, trying to give them a letter or even meet with the representative when they are in town. At this point only the committee members really matter. We have to get this fixed before it ever gets to the whole house. Fixing it in committee is much easier. And the time to do it is before they start having hearings on it. Even if you do the "form" letter from the ARRL, contacting the committee members (if you live in their districts) would be very beneficial.

Tom, AJ4XM

 

Two of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce members are licensed amateur radio operators. I will be applying what I learned while running for office myself and going down to the Hill to visit especially the two members that are amateur radio operators to discuss this legislation.

I will also be contacting the ARRL in an attempt to work with them and others to communicate a unified and effective message. The time to effect change in this legislation is now while it is in committee both in the House and Senate.

 

More info on the UHF Spectrum Congressional Attack (aka hr.607 and s.28)

Here is more info on the bill(s). Actually there are TWO with another in the senate.

H.R. 607 sponsor Rep. Peter King
Title: Broadband for First Responders Act of 2011
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:5:./temp/~bdTeVH::|/bss/|

Co-sponsors:

Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 2/14/2011
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 2/10/2011
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 2/17/2011
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] - 2/10/2011
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 2/17/2011
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 2/10/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 2/10/2011
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 2/14/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 2/10/2011
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 2/10/2011

also related to:

Senate Bill S.28
Title: Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN00028:|/bss/|

Sponsored by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV

co-sponsors:

Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. [MD] - 1/25/2011
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [NY] - 2/15/2011
Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] - 1/25/2011
Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] - 1/25/2011
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] - 1/25/2011
Sen Nelson, Bill [FL] - 1/25/2011
Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] - 2/14/2011

Go to the listed URLs for more specific information about each bill and what committees are handling them.

What can you do? Start calling the listed sponsors or their staffs and tell them why you disagree with their position on these bills. Write them... if they are from your state visit their local office. Senators are generally immune to contact if they have been in the office for more than one term so your best bet is with the congress-persons. Kill the bill in the house and it is effectively dead.

 

The military uses that band here in this part of the country. Also there are a lot of unlicensed devices in the 435 region. Those will be very difficult to get rid of. What about the satellites? Many of those are foreign and operate in the lower part of the band. We would no longer be able to use that part of the band but the DX stations couldn't use our band allocation.

 

IF you look at the wording in its entirety, They are looking to grab as much spectrum between 174Mhz and 512 that can be reallocated and auctioned off for the wireless network infrastructure. So it looks like in the next 8 years 440 and 220 will both be up fro grabs. The TV folks at CNN and local networks will have to do a refit as well.

 

So what do the Broadcast Engineers suggest happen to Government/Military RADAR in that spectrum? Will "PAVE-PAWS" have to shut down? Or be disabled when Public Agencies decide they want to use the frequencies?
After all, they ARE the primary users of that frequency range, and they are unlikely to give up the frequencies (especially when the military would face enormous expense to purchase new equipment and systems.) Or would the First Responders find their equipment unusable because of military
users? Either way, it is a bone headed idea.