[TenTec] Re: Write the President re new FCC Chair appointee

[Jim Wiley]

Trying again with non-html version



Jim Wiley wrote:

> OK, by request, here is a plain text version of the letter I wrote to 
> my senators. Be sure to change the "to" information, and the "from" 
> information, as well as edit out the Alaskan specific comments. You 
> can obviously insert your own comments as needed.
>
> This letter is a bit wordy. The wordsmiths among you will probably 
> want to make some changes. Also, try not to have all the letters 
> identical - this means rewriting some of the paragraphs, or changing 
> the order. Senators are particularly sensitive to "campaigns" - and 
> give much better response to letters that look individual.
>
> Also, DO NOT send your letter by email!!!!!! Spend a stamp, use the 
> Postal Service. Emails get counted, not read.
>
> - Jim, KL7CC
>
> _________________________
>
> The Honorable (senator's name)
> United States Senate
> (insert correct address)
>
>
> 21 January 2005
>
>
> Senator ( last name),
>
>
>
> I note in today’s news that Federal Communications Commission (FCC ) 
> Chairman Powell has announced his intent to resign his post. This 
> brings to mind something I have been wanting to mention for some time. 
> I cannot help but notice that the entire group of FCC commissioners 
> are primarily attorneys by chosen profession, and that no commissioner 
> lists any sort of engineering training as part of his or her background.
>
>
> I believe that continuing the practice of naming FCC commissioners 
> that do not include technical training as part of their skill set is 
> detrimental to the FCC in general, and has and will continue to mean 
> that political issues are given more weight than sound engineering 
> principles when new technologies are under consideration.
>
>
> While I understand that political and business issues are indeed 
> important when decisions are made as to which group or company gains 
> access to our airwaves or other media, the fact remains that 
> essentially all of what we have come to know as modern communications 
> depends in some way on electrical means to pass the desired message 
> from the originator to the recipient. In today’s times, this has 
> increasingly come to mean wireless, or “over the air” links.
>
>
> Why is this important?
>
>
> The means by which Broadcast radio and TV, cellular telephones, 
> satellite TV, wireless internet, police and taxicab radios, messages 
> from ships at sea, links to aircraft in flight, and all other similar 
> services that we as a people have come to depend on have one thing in 
> common: They all depend on access to the radio “spectrum”. Each 
> service uses a specific portion of this spectrum, some for AM radio, 
> some for Broadcast TV, some for police and fire departments, and so 
> on. In order to prevent interference, one of the primary tasks of the 
> FCC is to assign each service it’s particular “slot” so that signals 
> from one service do not overlap those of another. Assigning users to 
> slots in the available spectrum has increasingly become a political 
> exercise, while technical considerations have been given less import.
>
>
> An example:
>
>
> I am sure you are aware of the recent Tsunami disaster in the Indian 
> Ocean. While no one wants to see one of these events happen, the fact 
> is that they do, and all we as humans can do is help the needy and 
> comfort the injured. Many times in such a disaster, the primary need, 
> even ahead of medical supplies and food, is rapid and accurate 
> communications. Physical relief is of little use if it cannot be 
> directed to where it is needed.
>
>
> Because emergencies such as the recent Tsunami, and for that matter, 
> our own 1964 Good Friday earthquake demonstrate, commercial 
> communications facilities are often overloaded, disrupted themselves, 
> or otherwise fail just when they are needed most.
>
>
> When a disaster happens, there is one unique resource that steps in, 
> every time, to provide that most critical access to communications. 
> This resource is, of course, Amateur Radio. Amateur Radio operators 
> are by their nature able to provide backup communications to any point 
> on Earth, usually coming on the air within literally seconds of the 
> event itself.
>
>
> What is the problem?
>
>
> Under FCC Chairman Powell’s leadership, a new technology has been 
> pushed forward that threatens the ability of the Amateur Radio 
> community to respond in situations like those described above. Despite 
> thousands of comments to the contrary, and several engineering reports 
> that clearly explain the hazard to all users of the radio spectrum, 
> including actual demonstrations of the problems involved, the FCC 
> instead ignored it’s own technical advice, and pushed this unwise 
> technology forward.
>
>
> The new technology is known by various terms and acronyms, the most 
> common being Access Broadband over Power Lines (commonly abbreviated 
> to “Access BPL”, or simply “BPL”). For any number of technical 
> reasons, BPL can and does interfere with radio signals that Amateur 
> Radio operators depend on to provide the very communications links to 
> disasters that have saved lives in Alaska and Indonesia, and will save 
> lives the next time an event like this happens.
>
>
> In fact, BPL signals also interfere with Short-wave broadcasting (such 
> as the BBC or Voice of America), Red Cross emergency radio systems, 
> Military communications channels, long distance Aircraft radio links, 
> CB radio, commercial users of the “High Frequency” (HF) spectrum (such 
> as fishing boats, remote exploration camps, oil companies), and 
> similar uses.
>
>
> Under Powell’s leadership, the FCC has charged ahead with this 
> technology, despite clearly demonstrated problems.
>
> Instead of regurgitating a whole list of examples concerning this 
> specific issue, let me say that an enormous amount of supporting 
> documentation is available, any or all of which can be provided to 
> your office upon request.
>
>
> Why did this happen?
>
>
> One of the reasons this happened, I am convinced, is that none of the 
> commissioners were able to comprehend that BPL would cause 
> interference to existing services, and did not have the tools to 
> understand the negative reports by their own engineering staff.
>
>
> How can the problem be repaired?
>
>
> I believe that it should be an absolute requirement that at least 2 of 
> the commissioners be persons who possess an engineering background, 
> preferably electronic communications systems engineering, and that 
> they have served at least some time as an actual engineer. I know from 
> experience that persons with the requisite skills who are also 
> qualified attorneys do exist, and are not particularly rare.
>
>
> I would urge you to offer legislation making it mandatory that at 
> least 2 commissioners have the engineering background I suggest, and 
> also that this factor be included in the course of confirmation 
> hearings for any proposed commissioners.
>
>
> It should be obvious to anyone that a group charged with regulating 
> what amounts to a finite resource, in this case, the electronic 
> spectrum upon which all radio communications depend, must contain 
> people with expertise in that which they are attempting to control.
>
>
> I agree that there are issues before the FCC that have little or 
> nothing to do with engineering, such as how many TV stations can be 
> owned by a particular corporation, or what can be said on the radio, 
> and for these issues, attorneys are fine. However, when it comes to 
> technical issues, there is no substitute for expertise at the top.
>
>
> I will be happy to provide additional supporting documentation 
> concerning this issue.
>
>
> In the mean time, I hope you will be able to consider this as the new 
> FCC commissioner's confirmation hearings move forward.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> (your name and address - also, remember that your call sign is 
> meaningless to the senator)
>