Joel asked me to forward this. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Harrison, Joel (1st Vice President) Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:04 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: RE: [ARRL-ODV:9660] Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Court , DC Circuit Jay, If you will recall the Minute 56 Ad-Hoc Committee report, the 24 GHz band is one where we have documented in QST recently significant technological achievement by radio amateurs as well as significant activity. If someone wants to attempt to use the argument about what hams are doing here, let them do so. We're on very solid ground here in my opinion. This band is the best microwave band to use as a "test case" for us at this particular moment. Joel -----Original Message----- From: John Bellows [mailto:jbellows@skypoint.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 1:24 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [ARRL-ODV:9660] Re Confidential re ARRL v. FCC, United States District Court , DC Circuit I agree with Chris that the continued expansion of Part 15 devices by FCC has to stop. I just wonder if the secondary Amateur allocation at 24.05-24.25 GHz is the place to stand our ground. As I understand the situation: 1. FCC claims that it has jurisdiction to authorize Part 15 devices pursuant to Section 302(a) of the Communications Act, which allows FCC to regulate the interference potential of devices. 2. We don't question that jurisdiction, we argue that Section 302(a) is subject to Section 301 which provides (with a few Section 307 exceptions, e.g. CB, aviation and marine radio) no RF transmitters can operate without an FCC license. 3. In the order denying our reconsideration petition FCC states (finds) that the 24 GHz devices will NOT have any interference potential to licensed radio services. 4. Even though we believe the non-interference finding by FCC is without merit it is highly unlikely the Court of Appeals will substitute its judgment for the alleged expertise of the FCC. 5. Amateurs only have a secondary allocation and as such must tolerate any interference from the primary user, Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) devices. 6. There is no indication that the ISM community is inclined to Petition for Review of this action. 7. Even if the Court holds our statutory argument is correct, it could find, based on FCC evaluation, there will likely be no interference because of the narrow antenna beamwidths and the frequency agility of Radio Amateurs. 8. If the Court sides with us and construes Section 301 in accordance with its plain meaning, FCC will likely go to Congress for some legislative relief. 9. If FCC does that, it will almost certainly get that relief because Congress likes the idea of unlicensed radio operation, and encourages the "spectrum commons" idea. We could find that, in the long run, Congress could expand FCC Part 15 authority and we may have a worse situation than at present. Here are my questions. If we don't have the firm support of the ISM industry, is this really the battlefield of choice? What is the probability we can actually win this case? It seems that unlike the problems created by mass marketed omni-directional Part 15 transmitters, the source of interference from one these radiators should be relatively easy to track down. Unless I am missing something it also appears that once located the non-interference provisions of Part 15 should apply to the transmitter and it will be up to the owner to correct the interference problem. How do we avoid the claim that Amateurs are only interested in hanging on to little used spectrum because it is "theirs" no matter how underutilized, even in the light of a compatible use? Mind you I don't believe that but the claim will be raised. Shouldn't we wait for a battlefield more to our liking? The playing field is tilted enough. Wouldn't it be to our advantage to wait for a better fact situation or at the very least one where we have a few allies? 73, Jay, KØQB