Confidential to the ARRL Board: Not for Distribution Meeting Report House Committee on Energy and Commerce Staff March 11, 2011 By David Sumner, K1ZZ John Chwat and I had a 10 AM meeting with David Redl, Counsel, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, to express our concerns about H.R.607 which is assigned to this committee. David is new to his position, having just spent five years working on FCC regulatory and spectrum issues for CTIA. It was refreshing to encounter someone on the Hill who actually understands the radio spectrum. Highlights: 1. When John mentioned that Greg Walden (chairman of the Telecom subcommittee) is a ham David said, "Oh believe me, we know, we know." 2. Before we even got to our issue David said he was surprised that King's bill "threw you guys under the bus." House Energy and Commerce Committee staff has given no consideration to amateur spectrum because they're looking for deficit reduction revenue and they know they can't get any from our spectrum. From his CTIA experience he regards the spectrum of commercial interest to start at around TV channel 31 and go up from there. It was unnecessary for us to explain either why we were there or why having 420-440 MHz in the bill made no sense - he already knew both. 3. There's essentially no possibility of King's bill being given serious consideration because he's not on the committee of jurisdiction. 4. They're working on their own bill but aren't yet sure how much to try to pack into one piece of legislation. He was a little concerned about our support for allocating D-block spectrum to public safety because they're thinking more along the lines of a voluntary giveback of spectrum by broadcasters. I assured him that while we definitely supported the concept of a national interoperable broadband public safety capability (to which he nodded vigorously) we had no preference for one way of doing it over others as long as our spectrum wasn't affected. It was worth the trip just to give him this assurance since what we have put in writing to this point has implied support for D-block reallocation as the method of choice. We'll need to be a bit more careful about what we say about this; the distinction between "support" and "not oppose" is an important one. 5. David is in contact with his counterpart on the Senate committee on this issue. John asked him if he had heard what the Senate committee's timetable was for introducing its own bill; he replied that they were very open about what they were doing, except for the timetable. 6. I had happened to include the IARU emergency communications brochure in the information packet, which has a photo taken in the aftermath of the Kobe earthquake showing Japanese amateurs with a sign on the wall showing that they were using 436-MHz frequencies. This helped me make the point, just a few hours after another devastating earthquake hit Japan, that one reason we're able to respond to emergencies and to be interoperable anywhere in the world is because our allocations are international. 7. We delivered the NPSTC letter, of course, but since it was clear that David needed no persuasion I introduced it as possibly being useful to him in explaining to others why 420-440 MHz shouldn't be included in legislation. In short, the meeting was very encouraging. David was clearly receptive and approachable, and this will be helpful in addressing other issues (such as S.191 and H.R.81) at the appropriate time. In the meantime, it seems unlikely in the extreme that any "Broadband for First Responders" bill that emerges from the House committee of jurisdiction will contain a threat to 420-440 MHz or other spectrum used by amateurs. Of course we must continue to be perceived as leading the opposition to Section 207(d) until it's dead and buried, and we can't call off the troops until then. That's unlikely to be any time soon; the committee is only in the early stages of putting together its own bill.