Here is some background. Spectrum issues generally are dealt with by the FCC and the Department of Commerce in the form of the NTIA, and internationally at ITU and CITEL, where in all cases we are fully and effectively engaged. Congress does inject itself into the process occasionally but it is not the principal forum. The ARRL’s Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act initiative has a long history, beginning (I believe) in 1991 with the introduction of H.R.73 and S.1372 in the 102nd Congress. This was in the aftermath of the reallocation of 220-222 MHz. H.R.73 gained 219 co-sponsors in its two-year life; S.1372 had 36. Then there were H.R.3572 in the 105th Congress, H.R.783 and S.2183 in the 106th, H.R.817 and S.549 in the 107th and H.R.713 and S.537 in the 108th. Aside from the 102nd Congress the 108th was the high water mark for the effort; we obtained 108 co-sponsors on the House side and 8 on the Senate side. In the 109th H.R.691 and S.1236 garnered 33 and 6 co-sponsors respectively. None of these efforts made it to the President’s desk. Next month the Board will be considering legislative objectives for the 114th Congress. The starting point for that process generally is the set of legislative objectives adopted for the previous Congress, which is: Objective #1: The ARRL seeks legislation instructing the FCC to extend the requirement for “reasonable accommodation” of Amateur Radio station antennas (a requirement that now applies to state and local regulations) to all forms of land use regulation. Objective #2: The ARRL opposes legislation that would lead to the reallocation of amateur spectrum or to sharing arrangements that reduce the utility of existing allocations. Objective #3: The ARRL opposes legislation that diminishes the rights of federal licensees in favor of unlicensed emitters or encourages the deployment of spectrum-polluting technologies. Objective #4: The ARRL seeks recognition of the unique resources, capabilities, and expertise of the Amateur Radio Service in any legislation addressing communications issues related to emergencies, disasters, or homeland security. Objective #5: The ARRL supports the complementary legislative objectives of other radiocommunication services, particularly the public safety and scientific services that require spectrum access and protection from interference for noncommercial purposes that benefit the public. Objective #6: The ARRL opposes “distracted driving” legislation that does not clearly exempt two-way mobile radio transmitters or receivers used by licensees of the Federal Communications Commission in the Amateur Radio Service. Objective #7: The ARRL supports legislation authorizing FCC Commissioners to appoint an electrical engineer or computer scientist as an additional member of their staffs to ensure that Commissioners have adequate access to technical expertise when making decisions. In recent years our spectrum objectives (#2 and #3 in the above list) have been phrased defensively, i.e. in terms of the legislation we would oppose vs. legislation we would seek to introduce. At this point I am assuming that Objective #1 will again be at the top of the list. Seeking support for legislation on a different topic would dilute that effort somewhat. 73, Dave K1ZZ From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Vallio, Bob, W6RGG Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 12:38 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:23593] Fwd: Preserving our spectrum Greetings, This was proposed at my Division Cabinet meeting, Saturday, and met with good support. Something worthy of our consideration, I believe, 73, Bob -- W6RGG ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jack Cooper <jbcoopjr@sbcglobal.net<mailto:jbcoopjr@sbcglobal.net>> Date: Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 3:30 PM Subject: Preserving our spectrum To: w6rgg@arrl.org<mailto:w6rgg@arrl.org> Bob – After our conversation about the idea of a movement to legislate the preservation of our spectrum I googled “Amateur Radio Spectrum Protection Act” and found that there was legislation in 1998 to 2005 but it died in committee. I think the ARRL would be wise to make a new attempt. I find the government’s decision to sell commercial spectrum onerous and it brings to light how valuable the amateur frequencies are. There will only be more pressure on amateur frequencies as new technology emerges that could put them to “more beneficial” public purposes. Emergency and disaster response may have been the regulatory basis for our service but the spectrum we have is also a valuable resource to enable future generations to explore and improve communications technology as well as fostering communication with others throughout the world. ALL of these reasons justify setting aside this limited spectrum for all time just like we do our land and our oceans in national parks and preserves. We need a National Frequency Preserve! 1999 Bill: “To ensure the availability of spectrum to amateur radio operators.” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hr783/text 2005 Bill (slightly better) “To ensure the availability of spectrum to amateur radio operators.” https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/s1236/text I think the proposed legislation would benefit from more emphasis on resource preservation for future public access of spectrum to promote worldwide communications (including cross cultural understanding, etc.) for non-commercial purposes. Somehow need to write the legislation to specifically protect what we have for ham radio without giving the impression the law is designed just to benefit a bunch of amateurs and radioheads (nerds that they don’t care about). Jack