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

[JD]

* 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."  Scary, huh.  But they go on to 
ask: "How should our rules address the potential for new transmission lines 
to be constructed closer than the specified distance to pre-existing amateur 
stations? We do not want to inhibit the ability of either PLC systems or 
amateur services to grow and expand without imposing unnecessary burdens on 
either. Is it possible for utilities to refrain from geographically 
expanding their PLC operations within the relatively small portion of the 
9-490 kHz band that we are making available for amateur operations, and is 
this something utilities would do on their own accord, given the Part 15 
status of PLC systems? Should our rules explicitly prohibit utilities from 
deploying new PLC systems in these bands?"

My short answer: yes, please.  Look back at par. 26, in the WRC-07 R&O 
section where the Commission explains their basis for adding the 2200 m 
allocation:  "We intend to structure these service rules to promote shared 
use of the band among amateurs and PLC systems. Amateurs will not be able to 
use their allocation status to force unlicensed PLC operations out of the 
band, and utilities will have no cause to abandon or incur large costs to 
modify existing PLC systems."  Read part of that again: "Amateurs will not 
be able to use their allocation status to force unlicensed PLC operations 
out of the band."  That's the reality of the matter, but I think it also 
works in our favor.

So far as I know, this is unique in the history of radio regulation.  I 
can't think of another example where an incumbent, but unlicensed and 
unallocated, user of radio spectrum has been afforded such protection from 
any allocated and licensed service.  However, most of us who commented in 
the 2013 proceeding DID AGREE with the Commission that PLC technology has 
been a special case for a long time, and most recognized that acceptance of 
its existence would be the only way to move the discussion off dead center 
and get to the point where we are now.

But I maintain this coin has two sides.  If we in a licensed, allocated 
service accept that we will not displace existing PLCs now or in the future, 
then it is ONLY FAIR that the unlicensed, unallocated users should not be 
able to displace the licensed ones, either...now or in the future.  Letting 
someone use a resource only until you decide you want it for 
yourself...that's not sharing.

The only way I can see to guarantee such protection to the licensed users is 
to modify Part 15 to impose a formal freeze on any changes in power, 
transmission mode, route of existing PLC systems, or installation of new 
ones, within a reasonable guard band encompassing and immediately adjacent 
to the new amateur allocations.  That achieves the stated goal of not 
displacing existing systems or burdening the utlities by forcing any 
changes, while only removing two small slices of spectrum for consideration 
for future installations.  That seems an entirely reasonable compromise to 
me.

Your comments welcome--and necessary!

73
John D