FCC Seeks Comment On Spectrum Policy Recommendations

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by W0PV, Jan 13, 2018.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: l-assoc
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    The February 2018 QST Second Century editorial by ARRL CEO Tom Gallagher NY2RF is, IMO, a blockbuster. It outlines a situation which ought to be of concern to any active USA radio amateur. He tells of accelerated plans his staff are preparing for the Directors to act upon at the upcoming BoD meeting.

    IMO, if not there already, this topic could quickly rise to the top of all issues affecting USA amateur radio as we know it. Even more important then the ARPA! And certainly deserves far more attention and concentrated energy by the ARRL then silly in-fights, arbitrary CoC's, and unnecessary tinkering with governance policies. Read his editorial at the link below,

    http://www.arrl.org/files/file/QST/This Month in QST/February2018/Second Century.pdf

    --- NY2RF ---

    "To address and hopefully minimize ... interference issues, the
    FCC is considering a sea change in emphasis. The policies
    under consideration shift the primary focus from transmitters and
    RF emitters to include the ability of receivers to reject interference.
    It also suggests the upgrade of legacy modes (pay special
    attention if you operate analog SSB) to avoid interference and
    permit greater sharing opportunities. In plain language: to allow
    more sharing of spectrum — including amateur spectrum — with
    other services. ...

    { These potential FCC policies are described in Public Notice ET Docket 17-340 }


    "The danger is that the FCC could utilize this principle to (1)
    demand very specific operating parameters and hypothetical
    reference circuits to define and limit those amateur uses that
    are entitled to interference protection, or (2) determine that a
    given radio technique or emission type does not include sufficient
    interference rejection techniques in receivers to mitigate
    interference, and so deny interference protection arbitrarily."

    As I see it, this portrays a seriously freaked up future for amateur radio in the USA where op's are pushed away from freely choosing what modes are viable because official government decisions were made to share our spectrum and NOT ENFORCE interference mitigation for us if instead other modes could accommodate some basic form of communication.

    This might work out reasonably OK for the hoards of JT-FT8 users now occupying a few channels. But it would seem anyone using a "legacy" mode like any form that uses amplitude shift and demod by EAR, ie, CW, SSB, AM, will be mostly out of luck. You will be QRM'ed back into the stone age. I would think this to be unacceptable to the vast majority of active hams today, and forever.

    Normally this would be a matter easily delegated to the ARRL to handle for us, to lobby and advocate against happening. But taking into account recent ARRL flubs like ARPA, Regulation-By-Bandwidth, etc, can they be trusted to competently go it alone? Is this yet another reason why their BoD is in such turmoil, dysfunctional, and clipping itself off? Are they FLAT-TOPPING?

    Perhaps the big name radio clubs that have responded so well en masse with letters to the ARRL in regards to the internal politics will consider sponsoring a similar campaign to the FCC in regard to Public Notice ET Docket 17-340, due Jan 31, by providing models of correspondence and motivating their considerable memberships to submit comments.

    What do you think about, or should be done about, this issue ?

    73 de John - WØPV

    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018
    KM4TIN likes this.
  2. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    I gotta comment about the editorial title, "The New Protection Game: What it Could Mean for You" o_O - does this mean the ARRL is offering hams "protection"? :eek: Badda-bing badda-boom! :cool:
    NH7RO likes this.
  3. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have mixed feelings about this editorial.

    We are going to have to accept that shared spectrum means shared spectrum. That's how it is.

    But for Part 97 devoted spectrum, the interference issue is more complex.

    First, separate out the difference between interference and noise floor. Interference is deterministic, noise is not. That means that receivers that have the ability to remove specific waveforms as interference may be mandated in the future. We already have some of this on modern transceivers. It is not unreasonable for the FCC to ask for comments on making the RX end agile enough to deal with --some level-- of interference through removal of deterministic waveforms, forming interference..

    Now the reality.

    Think the wireless revolution is over or mature? Notta chance. IoT, 5G, and other uses are going to strap up wireless 10 X what it is today-- in less than a decade ahead. Forget about grow lights. The issue is IMD of all those 'incidental radiators'. That's the real problem. Will you see HF interference from ISM microwave radiators? As IMD,yes. That's the reality. But their waveforms can be removed, at the RX.

    The irony of that editorial, is NY2RF is conveying a point of view to many,many, hams who are in the commercial wireless sector. It would have been helpful to solicit their comments, which appear to be unrepresented.

    We know the issues, and try to keep them addressed in manufacturing and design. But ask yourself: WHERE IS MOST OF THE RF DESIGN HAPPENING nowadays?

    Not in the US.

    Chip W1YW
  4. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    Read the FCC document first. What they are proposing isn't as careless as what is being suggested. Some of it is actually an improvement on what we have now.
    KY5U likes this.
  5. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    And by the way, it takes some chutzpah for the League CEO to complain about FCC actions on RFI, when the League is doing next to nothing to curb the disintegration of enforcement at the Commission. If they can push a CC&R bill through Congress, which only applies to a portion of the amateurs in the US, they can push an RFI Enforcement Restoration bill through the same Congress, which not only helps amateurs, but people in every radio service.

    Where's the engagement with Congress on RFI? Preaching to the choir about RFI is pointless unless it is combined with even more engagement on the Hill.
    N3AB and NK2U like this.
  6. W8JLS

    W8JLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Its time to abandon the ARRL ship! Let the Radio clubs in America Unite and Start a New Voice of Amateur Radio and send the brightest of them to DC to lobby for our hobby.
    I would gladly pay $50 a year for membership, or even 79 or whatever to an organization that would put the hobby and its members First. That is the only way anything will get done in Washington on our behalf.
    KC8YXA, W7MY, WA4YBC and 4 others like this.
  7. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    No, it is not. It is in reference to the FCC and users. Keep trying to stir up hate and discontent.
  8. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Way to go. Completely sidestep the topic and promote fantasy organizations.
    KG7A and NE1U like this.
  9. KB4QAA

    KB4QAA XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    -The ARRL WILL go it alone since no other amateur organization exists.
    -The CEO himself says they are addressing the issue; the topic of his editorial.

    Lay off the hysteria about the League. Discuss the FCC proposal, not popular rants.
    K7ZG, W0BTU, KG7A and 2 others like this.
  10. KK5JY

    KK5JY Ham Member QRZ Page

    According to FCC, that's not true. They reference comment filings from many US AR organizations in their R&O discussions. Here's a rather substantial example [fcc.gov]
    W0BTU likes this.

Share This Page

ad: ProAudio-1