Brennan, This is certainly a distressing development, but it sounds as though a further inquiry is necessary before we can discern where (and if) pressure needs to be applied. It's unfortunate that this came out as somewhat of an ambush, even if it was unintended. That seems to happen far too often in politics, but I guess two (or more) can play that game. The public response to HR 607 certainly demonstrates that we can bring popular pressure to bear when we manage the message and everyone pulls together. I do have the concern that if word gets out before we were able to plan our message (to membership) and response, the amateur public could have a fractured response. The result from that could be less than optimal. I am comforted that you are watching this situation and have a plan for moving forward on the WRC-12 side of things. 73, Grant Hopper, KB7WSD On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Price, Brennan, N4QX <bprice@arrl.org>wrote:
Among the items on the agenda for WRC-12 are "possible allocations in the range 3-50 MHz to the radiolocation service for oceanographic radar applications . . . ." Throughout the domestic preparation process, the proponents of this agenda item have been sensitive to this application's incompatibility with the Amateur Radio Service. In fact, the United States contributed text that became a conclusion in the CPM Report: "[s]haring with amateur, broadcasting, and radio astronomy services seems to be difficult due to their protection requirements."
During domestic preparations, CODAR, a manufacturer of HF radar systems, made a proposal in the FCC's WRC-12 Advisory Committee (WAC) that utilized no amateur bands. ARRL extensively participated in the WAC (Jon Siverling served as Vice Chair of one of the Working Groups) and did not object to CODAR's benign proposal, which was ultimately adopted by the WAC, who advised the FCC accordingly.
The final United States proposal, decided May 9 and detected only after its transmission to CITEL, substantially differs from what CODAR asked for. Among the bands proposed to be allocated to radiolocation is 5250-5450 kHz, encompassing our domestic secondary channels. Given prior representations of the proponents, the inclusion of this band was as unexpected as it was unwelcome.
As best I can tell, 5250-5450 kHz was first suggested in an NTIA proposal dated February 28 but not released to the WAC for comment before the WAC's final meeting on April 19. NTIA proposals are normally released to the public and circulated to the WAC for vetting and comment (for example, the WAC's affirmative response to an negative NTIA proposal started the ball rolling toward the favorable United States proposal for an amateur allocation at low MF). However, delays between the dates of NTIA proposals and their public release are not uncommon. Had the proposal been circulated to the WAC by April 19, ARRL would have timely objected. A review of the WAC records confirms it was not.
I quietly conveyed ARRL's concerns to FCC, NTIA, and State Department officials who attended CITEL PCC.II in Santo Domingo last week. At an appropriate time in the near future, I anticipate we will more formally convey our concerns to the State Department, which has now fully taken on WRC-12 responsibility. I suggest that we should hold heavy organizational fire at this time--it may be that the proponents didn't want this band, but that they were involuntarily given it. If this is the case, there may be a chance they can assist, and attacking them would not help our cause.
73 de Brennan N4QX
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
-- 73, Grant Hopper, KB7WSD Vice Director, Northwestern Division