[EIDXA] Fw: RM-11306

[Jim Spencer]

RM-11306Here is some more information on the Regulation by Bandwidth as 
supplied by Bruce, K0BJ.  He also included two documents referenced at the 
end which I cannot attach but will be glad to forward to anyone that wants 
them.

73,  Jim W0SR


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Bruce Frahm K0BJ
To: Jim Spencer
CcThanks for your message. Here is some background on the subject you 
raised.
In July 2002 the ARRL Board of Directors adopted the following policy: "At 
the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition the FCC to revise 
Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead of by mode." The 
Board's objective was to update rules that were written long before the 
development of the current generation of digital modes so that digital 
emissions can be appropriately regulated in the future, while impacting 
traditional modes as little as possible.
Turning that statement of principle into a detailed petition proved to be no 
easy task. The Board received input from an ad hoc committee as well as 
staff, and twice solicited input directly from the ARRL membership. Hundreds 
of comments were received each time and helped inform the Board's 
discussions. Finally, at its July 2005 meeting the Board concluded its 
review of a draft petition and authorized its filing, following final review 
by the Executive Committee. The resulting petition was filed on November 14, 
2005 and was designated RM-11306 by the FCC, after which additional comments 
were filed by individuals directly with the FCC.
Once the FCC had dealt with two outstanding proceedings, WT Dockets 04-140 
and 05-235, we realized that the bandwidth petition was the next major 
Amateur Radio item in their hopper. On reviewing the RM-11306 petition, the 
comments, and the rules changes adopted in Dockets 04-140 and 05-235 it was 
apparent that some of the proposals contained in the petition had been 
affected by the changes adopted in the other two proceedings. It was also 
apparent that some aspects of the petition remained controversial.
After reviewing the situation at its January 2007 meeting, the ARRL Board 
authorized General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD to determine what changes to 
the petition had to be made to align it with the new FCC rules, as well as 
which aspects of the petition were not controversial and could reasonably be 
expected to be included in an FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Chris did 
so, and a meeting was held with FCC staff on February 13. As are all such 
meetings, this was made a matter of public record by the filing of a notice 
with the FCC Secretary that immediately became part of the online record in 
RM-11306.
The FCC staff was provided with a shortened list, or subset, of proposed 
rule changes from that contained in RM-11306. The list is included with the 
notice of the meeting. Because the proposals affecting the bands above 28 
MHz had not aroused much controversy, they were retained in the shortened 
list. Regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission remains 
controversial below 28 MHz because of perceived potential impact on 
established operating patterns, so these proposals were removed from the 
list with one narrow exception. The exception is necessary because, as 
discussed on page 11 of the RM-11306 petition, under the existing rules 
there is presently no effective bandwidth limit on HF digital operations. 
Digital emissions using multiple carriers, such as OFDM, can be designed for 
any bandwidth while staying within the existing rules. So, the subset of 
proposed rule changes given to the FCC on February 13 includes a bandwidth 
limit of 3 kHz on RTTY and data emissions below 28 MHz. It is important to 
understand that this does not increase the allowed bandwidth for RTTY and 
data emissions; it actually represents a new limitation that accommodates 
existing practice but prevents future monopolization of large segments of 
our narrow MF/HF bands by a single digital station. Also, the limit would 
not apply to phone emissions.
Some confusion has resulted from an item that, through oversight, was not 
deleted when the list of proposed rule changes was shortened. Because 
RM-11306 had proposed that bandwidths in most of the band segments now used 
for CW and RTTY be limited to 200 Hz and 500 Hz respectively, the existing 
500-Hz bandwidth limit that applies to certain automatically controlled 
RTTY/data stations was redundant and could be dropped. However, because the 
subset of proposed rule changes does not substitute regulation by bandwidth 
for regulation by mode of emission, the 500-Hz limit needs to be retained. 
General Counsel Imlay has filed an erratum with a corrected list of proposed 
rule changes that makes it clear there should be no change to the existing 
Section 97.221. We regret the error.
Some amateurs have observed that the subset of proposed rule changes 
provides less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than was 
afforded by the ARRL's proposals in RM-11306. This is true. However, it is 
not true that less protection is afforded than is the case with the existing 
rules. In fact, protection against interference from wide digital modes 
would be increased, not decreased, by adoption even of the subset.
The ARRL Board, having studied the situation literally for years, continues 
to support the principles of regulation by bandwidth that are contained in 
the original RM-11306 petition. Regulation by bandwidth provides a better 
regulatory framework, not only for the introduction of future digital 
emissions but for the protection of traditional narrowband modes as well. By 
providing the FCC with a subset of the modifications proposed in RM-11306 
the ARRL has offered an alternative that, it is hoped, will make it easier 
for the FCC to move at least part of the way in that direction.
David Sumner, K1ZZ
Chief Executive Officer, ARRL
March 22, 2007
<<Bandwidth Erratum 03 23 07.doc>> <<Bandwidth FURTHER AMENDED TABLE 03 22 
07.doc>>