[Lowfer] Rulemaking Ruminations - THREE: Don't Fence Us In

[JD]

>>>I think it is important to protect our rights, but not stir up a hornets 
>>>nest either:
>>>
>>>* THREE: At 172, the FCC observes: "If we were to adopt our proposal to 
>>>permit amateur operations only when separated by a specified distance 
>>>from transmission lines, when a new transmission line is built close by 
>>>an amateur station, the station either would have to relocate farther 
>>>away from the transmission line or cease operating."
>>>
>>>The same can be said for a new airport being built close enough to my 
>>>house to r estrict my antenna.  I would have to bring down the existing 
>>>antenna. New power lines have plenty of public hearings, etc...  and ones 
>>>that would use PLC are relatively rare.  So this does not seem to be an 
>>>unreasonable restriction to me.  I guess I see this as normal, and not 
>>>something we need to write up special protections for that might get the 
>>>PLCC community even more riled up against us.

Craig, I must respectfully point out that they can't get much more riled up 
against us.  Right now, we have NO rights.  What privileges we do get from 
the FCC, we're going to have to make a solid case for.  We don't want to 
tick anyone off with rash statements, certainly, but it is only by rocking 
the boat that we've gotten this far.  It didn't happen on its own.  It 
required decades of pushing, and the rest of the world passing us by, in 
order to get to this point.

The analogy of airport construction is not a good comparison.  In that case, 
you would have to move because airplanes can't simply fly around your tower. 
The power industry, however, has many alternative frequency choices for new 
construction!  Most PLCs don't use 4 kHz bandwidth...and they are certainly 
not uniformly channelized with 4 kHz separation between them, either. 
Careful channel packing, interleaving at 1 kHz and even 100 Hz intervals, 
gives them hundreds of options.

(And BTW, public hearings re: power line construction are seldom done these 
days in much of the US; mainly where there are environmental issues.  Many 
states seem to have given the industry an expedited eminent domain process 
that lets them run roughshod over property owners.  Some of my former 
colleagues in Georgia, who invested a sizeable part of their life savings in 
retirement homes in the hills, would be glad to tell you all about that. 
But back to our topic.)

>>>Hopefully we can utilize the existing PLCC spectrum coordination being 
>>>done by www.utc.org - that would be the best way to handle interference 
>>>problems in my opinion.  From their web site:
>>>"In order to provide greater recognition of utility use of power line 
>>>carrier, the FCC developed rules that established an industry-operated 
>>>notification activity to help minimize mutual interference between PLC 
>>>users and licensed users (LU). The purpose of the Power Line Carrier 
>>>Notification Activity is to establish and maintain a transmission Power 
>>>Line Carrier Data Base (PLCDB) and a Authorized User Data Base 
>>>(AUDB)...."
>>>
>>>It kind of seems like the issue of PLCC and licensed users has already 
>>>been addressed.

That notification process has been referenced in the proceeding in years 
past.  It was initially a way for the power industry to coordinate use among 
themselves and select their own operating frequencies.  It was not intended 
as a frequency coordinating process for "authorized users"--something the 
utilities reminded us in 2002, and to a lesser extent in 2012-13--but as a 
way for PLCs to avoid the licensed/authorized users that they couldn't push 
around.  Do you think the Air Force asks UTC's permission before they crank 
up a TACAMO exercise, or the FAA ever asked if they could please put an 
aerobeacon on a given channel?  It was a process designed for notification, 
not coordination.  It's also quasi-secret; we, the mere mortal public, are 
not intended to possess the details, lest we turn into terrorists or 
something.  Make no mistake, it's a database by and FOR the power industry. 
They've never really definitively said whether they'd even give ARRL access 
to use it for quasi-coordination.

>>>Maybe this database is why the FCC had suggested use at only fixed 
>>>locations - so the licensed ham transmitter sites can get put into this 
>>>database...?

That's the problem with what you said earlier about the seeming vagueness of 
"permanent fixed location."  It's not vague, but it IS the potential 
foundation of a formal coordination requirement.  In all other radio 
services, fixed location means that a specific, assigned geographic location 
attaches to your operation.  Most often, it is expressly shown on the 
license, but it may instead be authorized through a formal coordination 
process.  It does not necessarily mean you can't ever move, but it does mean 
you can't do it without going through some formal process in order to get 
reauthorized!

As a ham, would you rather be required to do all that?  Or would you rather 
have simple power, antenna, and separation rules that protect everyone 
adequately?

I'm no wild-eyed radical, Craig.  But understand, although conducted in a 
formal and civil way, this is an adversarial proceeding at its core.  Both 
sides are _expected_ to look out for their interests.  For our part, WE have 
to at least ask that the rules be made no more restrictive than necessary, 
AND make a solid case for the way we'd like to see them.  Otherwise, someone 
else will write them for us--and most likely in a form that will render the 
new bands far less useful to most hams, and completely unavailable to 
others.

It's in our interest that the power industry be protected too, of course, 
and I believe that we can both come out ahead if we state our case well.

John