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

[JD]

Thanks, James, for your viewpoints on the subject. They provide food for 
thought. Just a couple of comments on a few of the topics:

-----

In [1], you mention "the FCC is saying to the power companies: 'H am 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.'" 
That was the very thing we emphasized in the previous proceeding, in fact, 
to counter the power industry's overly broad (IMO, near hysterical) 
unsupported generalities about the ways our operation could cause them 
problems.  But that is a very different thing from confining us to permanent 
fixed locations!  True, it doesn't mean we can never change QTH--but it will 
require a formal coordination process each and every time; meaning in 
effect, it will have to be done with the power operators' blessing in every 
instance.  That's not sharing, IMO.

As for "It's best we not even touch this subject and let the FCC do all the 
talking on that," I have to respectfully and strenuously disagree.  In prior 
procedings, I have seen matters be decided against the best interests of the 
primary subjects of a rulemaking, simply because the FCC floated a given 
wording as a trial balloon, and when the affected parties didn't say 
anything, the FCC assumed they understood and accepted the implications. The 
Commission will have the final say, of course, but we _must_ speak while we 
have the opportunity.

One example: Carrier current operators in the AM band got their permissible 
power levels cut by 6 dB in the big rewrite of Part 15 two decades ago, 
simply by virtue of a change in the measurement method; after which, in the 
Report and Order, the Commission noted with some amazement "we were 
surprised that none of the parties commented" on that part of the NPRM. 
Silence is NOT golden at this stage of the game.

-----

In [2], I'm not clear why you think the database question is settled, since 
the utilities have still not formally said they'll let that access happen. 
And why is that the only way?  Adequate separation from their EXISTING 
operations is easy enough to achieve without us ever knowing one bit of data 
that's in their database.  The success of the Part 5 operations proves this.

As for their future operations, you say: "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."

How is that equal and fair????

We've accepted that we're not going to be able to force _them_ off the 
slightly more than 9 kHz of spectrum we're asking to share out of the 9-490 
kHz range that's available to them--but you would allow them to use prior 
notice to THEIR database to force US off?  That's not sharing, either, IMO!

-----

As for [3], I think it's an unwarranted assumption to state, "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."

Alas, if that were so, they would not be seeking further comment, but would 
have simply gone ahead and implemented new rules when they amended the Table 
of Allocations at the end of Docket 12-338.  If it were so, they also 
wouldn't have chided us for not providing enough hard data two years ago. 
Their wording in this NPRM makes it clear they've only been convinced 
coexistence is indeed possible, but they still need data to support how it 
can best be assured in the long run.

Hard numbers, therefore, ARE still needed.  The FCC knows what power levels 
were authorized, but most licensees have not submitted detailed accounts of 
what power levels were actually radiated and for how long, where such powers 
were radiated from (in the case of licenses which specified a range of 
geographical locations in addition to the primary coordinates), how that 
power was determined, and what sort of antenna efficiencies were 
encountered.  This is the kind of engineering data they will need to 
formulate reasonable power and antenna restrictions.  Otherwise, the rules 
will be based on assumptions that necessarily err on the conservative 
side...and we all know what happens when we assume.

We have to maintain the security of the power grid, obviously, but if we 
don't also look after our own interests, the other side surely won't.  We 
could end up with ham privileges so weakened that the only serious LF work 
will continue to be done under Part 5 licenses...and then what would be the 
point of all this effort?

The race is not finished.  The prize is not yet won.

73
John