Notice of Proposed Rule Making - License Restructuring

[Pete, WA2CWA]

From Bill Cross, FCC Staffer, at Dayton Hamvention Forum -

Regarding Amateur Radio proceedings now before the Commission, Cross was unable to pin down for FCC Forum attendees when they might expect to see a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in response to 18 petitions for rule making filed by ARRL, other Amateur Radio organizations and individual licensees. The primary hot-button issue in that proceeding is the future of the Morse code requirement for access to HF amateur bands. The FCC also is considering proposals to create a new entry-level license class and to implement some additional Amateur Radio license restructuring, including automatic upgrades from Technician to General and Advanced to Extra.

Cross said he anticipates the FCC will combine the 18 petitions into one NPRM and invite another round of comments from the amateur community. "I suspect the proposed rule making will be coming out in late summer or this fall," Cross said. The comment period could extend into early 2006, he added, after which a Report and Order would be written.

The amateur community also can expect a Report and Order as a follow-up to its April 2004 NPRM in WT Docket 04-140, Cross said. The main proposal in that proceeding--ARRL's so-called "Novice Refarming" plan--would eliminate the Novice/Tech Plus CW bands and use that spectrum to expand portions of the 80, 40 and 15 meter bands. Current Novice and Tech Plus licensees would get CW privileges in the current General CW bands. Cross said commenters generally seem to support the proposal, although he cited requests to establish even wider phone bands, "particularly in the 75-meter band."

Read the full report including BPL info here:
http://www.remote.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/05/25/1/?nc=1

[k4kyv]

My gut feeling is that BPL will be a dead horse issue before it is ever fully deployed, but it still bears careful watching.  It is interesting what some of the industry publications are saying.
NewsForge

Also, it looks like Motorola is getting in on the action.
http://www.motorola.com/mediacenter/news/detailpf/0,,5519_5509_23,00.html

It will be interesting to see if the FCC acts on the 18 amateur radio petitions before or after the League submits it bandwidth proposal (if it actually submits one).  If the FCC releases a NPRM for massive restructuring without considering the bandwidth issue, would they then go back and revamp the whole proposal if a b/w petition was submitted soon thereafter?  If they decide to hold off until the League submits its proposal, that would delay things considerably past Cross's projected time frame, even if the petition goes out within the next 30 days, unless they have already been working on this before any official rulemaking petition was submitted.

[w3jn]

The amateur community also can expect a Report and Order as a follow-up to its April 2004 NPRM in WT Docket 04-140, Cross said. The main proposal in that proceeding--ARRL's so-called "Novice Refarming" plan--would eliminate the Novice/Tech Plus CW bands and use that spectrum to expand portions of the 80, 40 and 15 meter bands. Current Novice and Tech Plus licensees would get CW privileges in the current General CW bands. Cross said commenters generally seem to support the proposal, although he cited requests to establish even wider phone bands, "particularly in the 75-meter band."

My Gawd, it's ABOUT TIME!  This 200KHz of spectrum is basically vacant and wasted.  

I wonder what the ARRL's position will be on this...?

73 John

[Jim, W5JO]

The amateur community also can expect a Report and Order as a follow-up to its April 2004 NPRM in WT Docket 04-140, Cross said. The main proposal in that proceeding--ARRL's so-called "Novice Refarming" plan--would eliminate the Novice/Tech Plus CW bands and use that spectrum to expand portions of the 80, 40 and 15 meter bands. Current Novice and Tech Plus licensees would get CW privileges in the current General CW bands. Cross said commenters generally seem to support the proposal, although he cited requests to establish even wider phone bands, "particularly in the 75-meter band."

My Gawd, it's ABOUT TIME!  This 200KHz of spectrum is basically vacant and wasted.  

I wonder what the ARRL's position will be on this...?

73 John

Check the bandwidth proposal Bud.  You can be sure the most popular mode, er should I say bandwidth, will not gain as much as the chirping crickets who send as useless drivel as we do.

[AG4YO]

Common sense says that taken as a whole, the Novice refarming, the ARRL restructuring and the ARRL proposed bandplan have conflicts in application.  As an example, the restructuring plan would turn loose thousands of NCTs on HF competing with existing users for spectrum.  The ARRL bandwidth based bandplan proposes to allow digital signals in the same band.  What happens to the existing AM and SSB user?  The ripple effect from many phone users will be, "lets take spectrum from CW".  So the 95% of Hams that use the three most popular modes, SSB, CW and AM will be squeezed by 5% of users who use digital?  Yep.

Please don't be silent on this one.   Thanks!

[W8AMD]

Well the NPRM on License Restructuring is out now.


http://www.qrz.com/FCC-05-143A1.pdf

No code test for all classes, no automatic upgrades.          

Read it and weep or cheer as you feel appropriate.

Larry

[Pete, WA2CWA]

There goes all those Techs getting on the HF phone bands with General Class privileges. Now, more room for all those digital warblers.

[K1MVP]

There goes all those Techs getting on the HF phone bands with General Class privileges. Now, more room for all those digital warblers.

Gee Pete, the FCC said no "automatic upgrades" for techs, as the ARRL proposed,--
What went wrong?
Oh well, am sure there will be many weekend "jiffy" classes sponsored
by the ARRL to teach the test to to "upgrade" to general.
Only in America, land of the free, and "right to freebies".

                                     73, K1MVP

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Gee Pete, the FCC said no "automatic upgrades" for techs, as the ARRL proposed,--
What went wrong?
Oh well, am sure there will be many weekend "jiffy" classes sponsored
by the ARRL to teach the test to to "upgrade" to general.
Only in America, land of the free, and "right to freebies".

                                     73, K1MVP

18 petitions, 6200 comments, and all the FCC did was remove the CW testing requirement. Even the ARRL wanted to retain the CW requirement test for Extra Class. Your question, "what went wrong" would be best directed to the FCC.

[Art]

If the FCC disagrees with a petition that the ARRL (or proxy) purveys . . . something went wrong?
This question spawns several others:
Is it possible the petitions did not reflect the needs of the service and the FCC?
Is it possible the FCC is not a rubber stamp for ARRL petitions?
Is it possible the petitions were recognized as instruments of an agenda other than the interest of the service?

-ap

[K1MVP]

Item 37: "Also, the purpose of the written examinations, under our rules, is not to determine whether a person has achieved a particular level of skill, but rather to determine whether an individual can properly operate an amateur station"

Interesting,very interesting,--this position of the FCC toward the amateur
service.
Could this mean they only care about promoting the "appliance" operator
mentality, and really do not care about the techincal aspect of ham radio
after all?
Maybe the FCC is looking to "streamline" the service and simplify things
for themselves after all?
                                        73`s K1MVP

P.S., Could it be the ARRL does not have the "clout" it once had with
       the FCC years ago, as many of thier suggestions were not
       approved by the FCC?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

If the FCC disagrees with a petition that the ARRL (or proxy) purveys . . . something went wrong?
This question spawns several others:
Is it possible the petitions did not reflect the needs of the service and the FCC?

In the FCC's mind, none presented a convincing agrument for the requests.

Is it possible the FCC is not a rubber stamp for ARRL petitions?

The ARRL probably would be the first to admit that they don't have an inside track with the FCC.

Is it possible the petitions were recognized as instruments of an agenda other than the interest of the service?

-ap

Petitions, "in the interest of the service" must have an agenda; petitions that have an agenda, may not always be in the best interest of the entire service. The FCC needs to weed through it all.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

...Maybe the FCC is looking to "streamline" the service and simplify things
for themselves after all?
                                        73`s K1MVP

P.S., Could it be the ARRL does not have the "clout" it once had with
       the FCC years ago, as many of thier suggestions were not
       approved by the FCC?

Maybe and "P.S. answer, Yes.

[AG4YO]

Unfortunately the FCC based their decision on what appeared to them to be a support of a majority of Hams for Telegraphy Test removal.  What they did was inaccurately equate the number of petitions asking for removal of element 1 for the entry level license with support for total removal of telegraphy testing.

Every survey I have ever seen indicated that Amateurs supported telegraphy testing by a margin of 60% for and 40% against at the worst.  If my memory serves me, if you tally the individual comments to the FCC on the various petitions to one person one vote, the comments were also 60/40 in favor of keeping the test.  I am in the process of verifying.

The most amazing thing to me is NCI getting what they wanted.  Mr. Stevenson is working on IEEE 802.22 which seeks to use frequencies above 50 MHZ for commercial data services, so what happens to 6 meters when NCTs become General Class Ops?  Fred Mayia makes money off of books will get a boost from sales, and Larry Klose in a candidate statement when Stevenson beat him for the NCI leadership said that he acknowldged that 70% of Amateurs want some kind of telegraphy testing, so the group had their work cut out for them.  

You can bet the FCC didn't get transcripts of CW and SSB QSOs and compare them to see the general position of CW ops for following the rules. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that they took the easy way out.  This does not bode well for AMers who stand to have big time interference from data stations if ANY bandwidth based bandplan is ever proposed.  The lazy way out would be for the FCC to regulate by bandwidth and the Amateur Bands become a giant free-for-all.  AM frequencies would have no protection.

This of course is my opinion.  Yours may vary.

[K1MVP]

Unfortunately the FCC based their decision on what appeared to them to be a support of a majority of Hams for Telegraphy Test removal.  What they did was inaccurately equate the number of petitions asking for removal of element 1 for the entry level license with support for total removal of telegraphy testing.

Every survey I have ever seen indicated that Amateurs supported telegraphy testing by a margin of 60% for and 40% against at the worst.  If my memory serves me, if you tally the individual comments to the FCC on the various petitions to one person one vote, the comments were also 60/40 in favor of keeping the test.  I am in the process of verifying.

The most amazing thing to me is NCI getting what they wanted.  Mr. Stevenson is working on IEEE 802.22 which seeks to use frequencies above 50 MHZ for commercial data services, so what happens to 6 meters when NCTs become General Class Ops?  Fred Mayia makes money off of books will get a boost from sales, and Larry Klose in a candidate statement when Stevenson beat him for the NCI leadership said that he acknowldged that 70% of Amateurs want some kind of telegraphy testing, so the group had their work cut out for them.  

You can bet the FCC didn't get transcripts of CW and SSB QSOs and compare them to see the general position of CW ops for following the rules. I think the only reasonable conclusion is that they took the easy way out.  This does not bode well for AMers who stand to have big time interference from data stations if ANY bandwidth based bandplan is ever proposed.  The lazy way out would be for the FCC to regulate by bandwidth and the Amateur Bands become a giant free-for-all.  AM frequencies would have no protection.

This of course is my opinion.  Yours may vary.

Interesting comments, and "food for thought"--After this latest NPRM
 by the FCC of the proposal to totally eliminate CW for all classes,
including the Extra class, AND the denial by the FCC to establish a
"new" entry level license,--I really question how the FCC views
amateur radio now.
Could it be we are becoming more of a "liability" than an "asset" in
their view, and the less "work" we are to them,"the better"?

                                       73`s, K1MVP

[AG4YO]

If the FCC disagrees with a petition that the ARRL (or proxy) purveys . . . something went wrong?
This question spawns several others:
Is it possible the petitions did not reflect the needs of the service and the FCC?
Is it possible the FCC is not a rubber stamp for ARRL petitions?
Is it possible the petitions were recognized as instruments of an agenda other than the interest of the service?

-ap

Well Art, I wrote one of the petitions and I was not an instrument of any agenda other than compromise.  I wanted to keep code testing for General and Extra and suggested HF privleges in segregated band segments for Techs.   Now I will try to comment to get telegraphy testing saved for Extra at least.  

Do you think removal of telegraphy testing is in the "interest of the service"?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Do you think removal of telegraphy testing is in the "interest of the service"?

Get rid of it. If an amateur wants to use the CW mode, they will master it. Taking and passing a code test, doesn't make one a "better" amateur in the "interest of the service". A sincere attitude and the on-the-air learning experience makes for an amateur that will best serve the interests of the amateur service.

[K1MVP]

Do you think removal of telegraphy testing is in the "interest of the service"?

Get rid of it. If an amateur wants to use the CW mode, they will master it. Taking and passing a code test, doesn't make one a "better" amateur in the "interest of the service". A sincere attitude and the on-the-air learning experience makes for an amateur that will best serve the interests of the amateur service.

If a "sincere attitude" and "on the air training" experience is all that
matters, then why even bother having a written exam?
I would think that a sincere attitude IS measured (in most cases)
by a willingness to put a bit of "effort" into obtaining a license.
But then again, that`s probably just "old fashion" thinking.

                                   73, K1MVP

P.S., At the rate things are going(in a few years) many will probably
       say the same about the written exams,--Just get rid of them.

[Glenn K2KL]

Removing the code requirement from all classes, ...just the next step in turning amateur radio into an all-appliance, out of the box, no-brainer hobby...

Lets see..... pretty soon,  get your extra class license at Radio Shack for a $10 dollar fee.

Eliminate homebrewing.... all rigs must be type accepted... CAW MAWN!! 

2 meter hand helds with built-in cell phones....

oh yea!