[PVRCNC] Re: [PVRC] questions for FCC chief?

[Jim Jordan K4QPL]

Hi Pete,

That was what I was getting at. The question was simply a general "amateur
radio operators are concerned about interference...." one.

His response was not that the FCC would protect "licensed users," but
"critical users." In my mind, whether one is a "critical user" (in govspeak)
gives room for them to interpret it from day to day. Likewise, while he said
"impermissible interference," it was said in the context of the "critical
user" definition. And while dealing with the amateur radio question, in the
same paragraph the comment about "not easily dissuaded" does not sound like
hypersensitivity to me. It sounds like arrogance and it all spells
T-R-O-U-B-L-E in the long run if we don't really find some clout.

Maybe we need to build some full-legal mobiles to do some "cruising" in
these neighborhoods and see how bullet-proof their systems are to a LICENSED
station in the vicinity.....just kidding......I think....

Jim

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pete Smith" <n4zr@contesting.com>
To: "Jim Jordan K4QPL" <k4qpl@nc.rr.com>; "Pete Soper"
<psoper@pjs.East.Sun.COM>; <pvrc@mailman.qth.net>; <pvrcnc@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [PVRC] questions for FCC chief?


> At 11:26 AM 3/6/04 -0500, Jim Jordan K4QPL wrote:
>
> >The good news: There was an amateur radio question posed to him.
> >
> >The bad news: What he said. Today's News and Observer (Page 13A) The
> >chairman's use of "code" words are really scary:
> >
> >"We've never said we would let it go on and interfere with critical
services
> >[meaning what?]. ....We've been fully committed to only allowing things
> >within the range of what we're convinced won't create impermissible
> >interference [meaning what?]....We're not going to be easilydissuaded
from
> >doing something that has that much potential (re broadband
> >availabilility)..."
> >
> >Obviously, if you read between the lines, Powell does not consider
amateur
> >radio a "critical service." and therefore interference would not be
> >"impermissible".
> >
>
>
> How was the question phrased?  Powell's obviously hypersensitive about
> amateur radio.  What he mis-stated, of course, is the fundamental Part 15
> principle that unintentional emissions from Part 15 emitters must not
> interfere with LICENSED users of the spectrum.  Last time I checked, that
> was still us...
>
>
> 73, Pete N4ZR
> Check out the World HF Contest Station Database
> Updated 9 Jan 04
> www.pvrc.org/wcsd/wcsdsearch.htm
>
>
>