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

[James Whedbee via Lowfer]

Good morning, friends!

I've enjoyed reading your thoughts and ideas as the NPRM gets ready for publication in the Federal Register.  Forgive me if I throw in some thoughts in just this thread (as these may apply to the first and second threads as well), but this is meant to be brief while putting some context to what the FCC said in the NPRM/Order...

[1]  Keep in mind the FCC's intended audience when it wrote the Order implementing WRC-07.  When the FCC talks about "Permanent Fixed Operation" in that Order, it is using Part 90 language. Put simply, the FCC is saying to the PLC operators/utilities that we're not going to be mobile, itinerant, or temporary.  It's not meant to create new language within Part 97 (although some may bring up to the subject in the NPRM proceedings and force the issue; i.e., ARRL).  Why?  The operation of PLCs isn't just governed under Part 15, but also derives primary authority from 47 CFR Section 90.35(g).  This hybrid operating authority has been the sticking point in past rulemaking proceedings because the PLC operators/utilities hang their hat on this the same way as if they'd been licensed by rule.  Anyway, to get to where we're now at (i.e., we have the allocation in Part 2, and now we're writing rules/regs for Part 97 so we can start using LF and MF), we've accepted
 one another's right to coexist regardless of what international treaty says about ham radio being an allocated service in terms of right over Part 15 operations which are supposed to be on a non-interference basis.  Back to my point, the FCC is saying to the power companies: "Ham radio LF and MF operation isn't the type of thing where you can just pick up and run; LF and MF operation requires a more-or-less permanent situation."  It's best we not even touch this subject and let the FCC do all the talking on that, but that's just my opinion as one of the rule's primary authors.

[2]  The long-standing issue of registering PLCs and ham radio stations in a database accessible by both operations seems settled: it'll happen if this is to work.  Well and good: for reasons which follow, I personally support it, so if the power companies want to foot the bill to keep it up and running, great...and thank you!  There are very real reasons power companies may need to replace transmission lines with PLC systems that touch upon national security, practicality, and enforcement of other FCC rules implicating power companies (these guys get fines just like we do when they violate FCC rules, so they may need to move a line to comply with the FCC's orders).  Again, I personally have no problems with allowing power companies to upgrade and move lines, but ham radio will be held bound only to what is in the database in terms of PLC location; accordingly, until the lines are up and in operation as well as in the database, ham radio stations need
 take no action. For this reason, I encourage hams to keep as much distance between themselves and the power lines carrying PLCs as possible - so as to allow for future modification.  Provided ham radio does this, together with 'good engineering' already required by Part 97, ham radio deserves to at least have prior notification of proposed construction of a power line.  This is where ham radio LF/MF operation needs to also be registered in this database.  If a power line is proposed to be moved or built in areas where ham radio is registered, the PLC operator/utility must give prior notice to the ham radio operator.  Simply put, it's equal and fair on both sides. We (PLC and ham radio) can each move if we need to...prior notification in the database is necessary though.  Nobody's being fenced in...

[3]  The FCC already has a database of Part 5 operations for the past decade.  Given the power levels authorized in those Part 5 licenses, the FCC already knows relative field strengths in terms of locations versus power line locations.  They (FCC) wouldn't have mentioned Part 5 licensees coexisting peacefully with power companies if they didn't already have more than enough data to support it, so while additional number crunching may be helpful, you can safely assume that's already been done (it has) if the FCC is so willing to refute the power companies' arguments in the Order.  On 2200 meters, we will be limited (per WRC-07 treaty) to 1 Watt EIRP...that's a nonnegotiable in terms of the the new rules (treaty requires that limit).  On 630 meters, we will be limited to (per WRC-12 treaty) to 5 Watts EIRP...again, a treaty requirement we can't negotiate in the implementing regs.  These power levels are actually much lower than most of the Part 5 licenses
 the FCC has been issuing, and so the record is all but complete in terms of technical data.  Another of you mentioned that PLC equipment isn't mentioned much in the record.  Pull up my comments in WT Docket 12-338 and I think you'll find where I actually got some equipment data from the manufacturer of PLC equipment.  There are others available in the FCC's equipment authorization database (OET), but it takes some digging.  To save you the trouble, I'll just say this: unless a ham radio operator transmits directly into a power line (not plausible if operating as a Permanent Fixed station), the chances of interference are remote at best.

[4]  The one kilometer separation is well-established in the past records of proceedings on these same subjects and the power companies have already expressed a willingness to accept this distance.  I've suggested (off the record) to others commenting in past proceedings that we actually widen the margin to one mile rather than one kilometer just to prevent future disputes where the margins are pretty narrow.  When I eventually file recommendations in the NPRM for Part 97 rules, I'm going to offer one mile separation in lieu of one kilometer with a comment to the effect that this will require power companies to have a clear and convincing case before complaining of interference from ham radio.  I'll catch a bit of flack from fellow hams but I'm willing to endure some heat to get us in these bands.

I hope this adds a bit of context to what's coming. I will close with the same thought as I wrote in the opening of proceedings in Docket 15-99...let's show the FCC and the power companies that peaceful coexistence isn't just possible but essential to our mutual survival.  The FCC has, in recent memory, taken the unexpressed position that amateur radio must take a back-seat to commercial telecommunications; however, the power companies aren't really in telecommunications, per se, and their last effort to break into telecommunications was an utter failure (carrier current operation in Docket 08-63).  We need to show that commercial telecommunications require our innovation to survive into the 22nd century, and therefore, we're as essential as they are.  This proceeding is our first test along that line of reasoning.

73's,

James Edwin Whedbee, M.P.A., M.Ed.
N0ECN, Gladstone, MO USA
formerly WE2XTU