[Lf] Re:Message from N1LF

[Andre' Kesteloot]

Tod - ID wrote:

> N1LF wrote:
>
> > Last week I called ARRL headquarters to ask about the ARRL's
> > LF Petition status. I was told that we could still file comments
> > and ask about the status of the petition. Headquarters promised
> > to get back to me with information about how to do that
> > electronically. Two weeks, not a beep.
> >
> > I plan to call again tomorrow and start over. Same thing with the
> > LWCA, if we can become only a little more organized, then
> > we could file petitions ourselves and develop some official
> > standing with the FCC, ARRL, etc.
> >
>
> Lowfers are 'recognized' by ARRL. There has been at least one article in QST
> in the last several years. Mark Wilson, the person at ARRL responsible for
> ARRL publications (including QST) has asked me to help him find people who
> will write articles that can be published to help people start operation on
> a 160 kHz band once it is allocated by the FCC. (I have discussed it with a
> couple of people on this reflector). A petition for rule making (RM-9404)
> was filed October 22, 1998 and is still pending (which is why you can
> comment on it).
>
> During the July, 2000 meeting of the ARRL Board the General Counsel of the
> League, Chris Imlay, W3KD, reported on the status of Frequency allocation
> issues now active. The 160kHz petition was number 5 on the list of  12
> items, Very immediate threats to the 2.3 GHz and 2.4 GHz bands were items
> #1, #3 and #4;  Part 15 emissions were covered in item #2.
>
> Because all written and oral communications from the General Counsel during
> a Board meeting are covered by lawyer-client privilege I am not able to
> repeat in detail Mr. Imlay's words. He did state that he has checked
> regularly on the progress of  the RM-9404 and in his most recent
> conversation he was told that processing the request had been delayed by
> "more urgent deadlines".
>
> I am under the impression that he has been informed that a draft document
> has been created by OET (Office of Experimental Technology), but has not
> been released to the entire Commission. Apparently the OET is concerned
> about interference to utilities. It is my further impression that there will
> be a meeting in Washington in September between FCC and ARRL representatives
> and this petition is on the agenda. Prior to that meeting I would expect
> Imlay to meet with FCC staff to sort through concerns so that the September
> meeting will be 'smooth'. Such an earlier meeting would involve Imlay, Dick
> Wilder, a technical consultant who created the initial request for ARRL, and
> perhaps some of the AMRAD people.
>
> I suggest that the few hundred LOWFERs currently active in the US probably
> can not bring much additional political pressure to bear on this matter (at
> least in the eyes of the FCC). However, it cannot hurt to write to the OET
> and share with them your thoughts on just how much interference the power
> companies are likely to experience. Especially since there have been no
> reported cases of interference from GWEN. (The utilities are not protected
> from interference on these frequencies by current rules anyway). Other
> comments that may be constructive would be good too.
>
> It is my opinion that if there is going to be an FCC allocation to amateurs
> on the LOWFER frequencies it will come from RM-9404. As far as operating
> according to the "rules" that apply to the LOWFER frequencies I suggest that
> the LOWFERS are doing the correct thing by settling upon a 'reasonable'
> interpretation of the written text and then proceeding to operate. It is
> inconceivable to me that there will be a large scale FCC investigation and
> "bust" aimed at capturing scofflaw LOWFERs.
>
> Tod, KØTO