[K3PZN-List] Concerning the new FCC rules.

[Neeriemer, Bill (NIH/NLM/LHC) [C]]

At the BoD meeting last night, we were discussing the new FCC rules,
which took effect this morning.  Specifically, there was discussion
about the brouhaha concerning the changes to the 75/80 meter band.

I asserted that I thought it was unlikely that the FCC would alter the
R&O a second time.

A closer examination revealed a clear distinction between the J2D issue,
which was altered in an Erratum, and the 75/80 meter changes.

The R&O is divided into 2 main sections, the English (or semi-English)
portion where the commission discusses the issues that it is ruling on,
and the reasoning behind their decision(s), and the Legalese portion
where the commission lists the exact amendments that were approved.

In the case of J2D, the FCC in its discussion portion specifically
addresses the concerns raised by the ARRL that J2D might be
inadvertently limited to 500Hz.  In doing so, the FCC explicitly stated
that they would word the new regulation in such a way as to avoid this
problem.  Unfortunately, the FCC did not live up to its promise.  The
erratum rewords the amendment so that it is clearer that J2D is not
limited to 500Hz.  This is appropriate since the rules change as
published in the Fed. Reg. were NOT what the FCC intended to publish.

In the case of the 75/80 meter band change, the FCC clearly stated its
intent to move the PHONE/IMAGE portion to 3600 instead of ARRL's
proposed change.  (3635 as I recall.)  They clearly stated that it was
their belief that this is what most HAMS would want based on the
comments filed for the NPRM.  Since the amended rules conform to the
FCC's intent, it would be inappropriate for the FCC to issue an erratum.


Of course, nothing prevents the FCC from changes the rules once again,
but it would need to follow the proper procedures.

Personally, I find this debate interesting, but purely academic since
I'm still limited to VHF/UHF comms.

73 Bill W3STG