In a message dated 9/4/2002 11:55:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, K5ur@aol.com writes:

Seems I recall in the back of my mind some discussion about NTIA on this. I'm concerned due to Chris' comments, especially that the FCC will not override NTIA. Sounds like a done deal already. Where does that leave us now? Move above or below 5250 - 5400?

Given our previous discussions and planning about 5 MHz, makes me wonder why we didn't have some better idea of the magnitude of what we would be up against ahead of time.

Let me try to answer Rick's question and refresh recollections about this. We had extensive conversations about the NTIA's concerns at the last Board meeting while confirming the Board's intentions for the specifics of the 5 MHz band and the structure of our comments regarding, for example, mode subbands. We chose the 150 kHz segment rather than any other portion of the band near 5 MHz because our consultant on this subject, who had access to a version of the Government Master File (GMF) broke the band up into 50 kHz chunks. We chose the three, 50-kHz chunks which had the fewest Government assignments. We were well aware of the need to protect Government assignments, and felt that the segment we chose was the best one from that perspective. We could not know which assignments were where, however, as that is classified information, not available to us. We only had raw numbers of assignments. We used the best information available to us. Right after we filed our petition in this case, I received a call from Russ Slye at NTIA asking for a copy of the petition. He said that he was asked to speak about it at some amateur radio club meetings, and wanted it for that reason. I now believe that his request was professional, rather than in his role as a Radio Amateur, but I can't prove that. We like Russ, and he has always been candid with us, so we provided him a copy right away. Then, some time prior to the release of the NPRM in this case, we received a call from Kathryn Medley at FCC in the Office of Engineering and Technology, attempting to set up a meeting with us, NTIA reps Slye and Nebbia, and numerous FCC staff. Kathy told us that NTIA was not pleased about the 5 MHz proposal due to concerns about interference to Government assignments, especially Coast Guard and Department of Justice. We were asked to consider some interference minimizing concessions, such as limiting the use of the band to Extra Class licensees only, power limitations, and perhaps mode limitations. Concerned about this, and because we had a warm relationship with Slye at NTIA, Paul and I spoke with Russ, who was uncharacteristically closed-mouthed about it. He asked us to consider regulatory restrictions that would limit the number of users in the 5 MHz band at any one time. He said he couldn't say much about the interference problems, but that he looked forward to the meeting and wanted us to be ready to look for ways to minimize interference and band occupancy. Hard to do when you aren't told the nature of the problem or its magnitude. I called Kathy Medley, to get as much additional information as possible so that we could plan for the meeting. Kathy added little to what she had said before, but was somewhat dismissive of the NTIA concern. I asked her whether the IRAC had addressed the NPRM, and she said that it had, but that the Coast Guard and Justice had objected. That was not going to stop the FCC from issuing the NPRM, though, according to her. Before the scheduled meeting occurred, FCC Commissioners released the NPRM, and Kathy Medley promptly cancelled the meeting. She said that FCC wanted to get some comments in first, and then she would reschedule it. However, in subsequent inquries by telephone, she declined to reschedule the meeting, apparently wanting to just proceed with the notice and comment proceeding. I don't know whether this was because FCC was going to ignore the NTIA's concerns, or whether FCC just wanted to see what comments were filed, and proceed only on the written record. When the Board was considering mode subbands at 5 MHz, as Directors Frenaye and Stinson had proposed, we discussed the nagging problem of NTIA's objections, and the fact that it was difficult to evaluate the seriousness of them, given NTIA's closed-mouthed approach to it, and FCC's refusal to reschedule a meeting about it. Under the circumstances, we had to presume that the NTIA concerns were substantial, and it was a surprise when no comments or reply comments were timely filed. The strength of the NTIA opposition, late-filed, however, was more than we anticipated. We expected conditions to be demanded, not an all-out opposition to the allocation. Ed Hare suggests we read the NTIA letter filing as a "not yet" suggestion. I don't read it that way. However, subsequent conversations with Slye have revealed that there is still some negotiation to be done, and he urged that we meet not just with him (though President Haynie and I will do that on the 17th of this month) but also with the IRAC reps from the Coast Guard and the Justice Department, and that we ask Karl Nebbia, who chairs the IRAC, to allow us to make a presentation to them as soon as possible. We are arranging all that now. I am also trying to get a read from OET on this, to see whether they are going to take the NTIA letter seriously, or proceed with the allocation, with some restrictions. We may have to make some concessions. Slye asked whether, for example, we could avoid certian segments, or even accept an allocation only of specific frequencies, rather than an entire band segment (He must have heard of the Great Britain plan). So, it is not exactly that we were blindsided, or at least avoidably blindsided, on this at all. Rather, it is a somewhat typical example of the problem of coordinating with Government uses in an HF band where Quiet Zones can't work, and other fairly normal sharing techniques are difficult due to interference potential. The ARRL Lab has no suggestions for interference avoidance other than power limitations, since they agree with NTIA about inteference potential as described in the NTIA letter comments. I am copying Rick Lindquist on this memo, because I told him earlier that how this is billed may determine membership and public attitudes about the issue. It is in any case work in process. I will keep you informed with the details about our efforts here, and suggestions are welcome, as usual. President Haynie's trip to Washington this time is timely and urgent, perhaps more than usual. 73, Chris W3KD