[SEDXC] Here's the latest explanation as to what is going on with RM 11306

[MAllphin at aol.com]

Hi all,
   This was forwarded to me by one of the guys in the  Eastern Iowa DXA...
Bob
K4UEE

In July 2002 the ARRL Board of Directors adopted the  following policy: "At
the next practical opportunity the ARRL shall petition  the FCC to revise 
Part 97 to regulate subbands by signal bandwidth instead  of by mode." The 
Board's objective was to update rules that were written  long before the 
development of the current generation of digital modes so  that digital 
emissions can be appropriately regulated in the future, while  impacting 
traditional modes as little as possible.
Turning that statement  of principle into a detailed petition proved to be
no  easy task. The  Board received input from an ad hoc committee as well
as  staff, and  twice solicited input directly from the ARRL membership.
Hundreds  of  comments were received each time and helped inform the
Board's   discussions. Finally, at its July 2005 meeting the Board
concluded its   review of a draft petition and authorized its filing,
following final  review  by the Executive Committee. The resulting petition
was filed on  November 14,  2005 and was designated RM-11306 by the FCC,
after which  additional comments  were filed by individuals directly with
the  FCC.
Once the FCC had dealt with two outstanding proceedings, WT Dockets  04-140
and 05-235, we realized that the bandwidth petition was the next major  
Amateur Radio item in their hopper. On reviewing the RM-11306  petition,
the  comments, and the rules changes adopted in Dockets 04-140  and 05-235
it was  apparent that some of the proposals contained in the  petition had
been  affected by the changes adopted in the other two  proceedings. It was
also  apparent that some aspects of the petition  remained controversial.
After reviewing the situation at its January 2007  meeting, the ARRL Board 
authorized General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD to  determine what changes to 
the petition had to be made to align it with the  new FCC rules, as well as
which aspects of the petition were not  controversial and could reasonably
be  expected to be included in an FCC  Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
Chris did  so, and a meeting was held  with FCC staff on February 13. As
are all such  meetings, this was made  a matter of public record by the
filing of a notice  with the FCC  Secretary that immediately became part of
the online record in   RM-11306.
The FCC staff was provided with a shortened list, or subset, of  proposed 
rule changes from that contained in RM-11306. The list is included  with
the  notice of the meeting. Because the proposals affecting the  bands
above 28  MHz had not aroused much controversy, they were retained  in the
shortened  list. Regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode of  emission
remains  controversial below 28 MHz because of perceived  potential impact
on  established operating patterns, so these proposals  were removed from
the  list with one narrow exception. The exception is  necessary because,
as  discussed on page 11 of the RM-11306 petition,  under the existing
rules  there is presently no effective bandwidth  limit on HF digital
operations.  Digital emissions using multiple  carriers, such as OFDM, can
be designed for  any bandwidth while staying  within the existing rules.
So, the subset of  proposed rule changes  given to the FCC on February 13
includes a bandwidth  limit of 3 kHz on  RTTY and data emissions below 28
MHz. It is important to  understand  that this does not increase the
allowed bandwidth for RTTY and  data  emissions; it actually represents a
new limitation that accommodates   existing practice but prevents future
monopolization of large segments  of  our narrow MF/HF bands by a single
digital station. Also, the limit  would  not apply to phone emissions.
Some confusion has resulted from an  item that, through oversight, was not 
deleted when the list of proposed rule  changes was shortened. Because 
RM-11306 had proposed that bandwidths in most  of the band segments now
used  for CW and RTTY be limited to 200 Hz and  500 Hz respectively, the
existing  500-Hz bandwidth limit that applies  to certain automatically
controlled  RTTY/data stations was redundant  and could be dropped.
However, because the  subset of proposed rule  changes does not substitute
regulation by bandwidth  for regulation by  mode of emission, the 500-Hz
limit needs to be retained.  General  Counsel Imlay has filed an erratum
with a corrected list of proposed   rule changes that makes it clear there
should be no change to the  existing  Section 97.221. We regret the error.
Some amateurs have  observed that the subset of proposed rule changes 
provides less protection  to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than was 
afforded by the ARRL's  proposals in RM-11306. This is true. However, it is
not true that less  protection is afforded than is the case with the
existing  rules. In  fact, protection against interference from wide
digital modes  would be  increased, not decreased, by adoption even of the
subset. The ARRL Board,  having studied the situation literally for years,
continues  to support  the principles of regulation by bandwidth that are
contained in  the  original RM-11306 petition. Regulation by bandwidth
provides a better   regulatory framework, not only for the introduction of
future digital   emissions but for the protection of traditional narrowband
modes as well.  By  providing the FCC with a subset of the modifications
proposed in  RM-11306  the ARRL has offered an alternative that, it is
hoped, will  make it easier  for the FCC to move at least part of the way
in that  direction.
David Sumner, K1ZZ
Chief Executive Officer, ARRL
March 22,  2007




************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. 
 Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.