147 lines
6.3 KiB
Plaintext
147 lines
6.3 KiB
Plaintext
Information about the FCC's Scanner Law Notice of Inquiry
|
|
|
|
Uploaded to CompuServe HamNet
|
|
by Benn Kobb, KC5CW
|
|
CIS: 75676,1705
|
|
MCI Mail: BKOBB
|
|
Internet: bkobb@mcimail.com
|
|
Packet: KC5CW@N4QQ
|
|
|
|
This file contains:
|
|
|
|
1. Brief summary
|
|
2. List of FCC's 9 questions
|
|
3. How to comment to FCC
|
|
|
|
This is not an exhaustive history of this Notice of Inquiry. The reader is
|
|
directed to any of the fine Amateur Radio publications for complete
|
|
background. From the summary information below, however, interested
|
|
persons can learn enough to comment to the FCC.
|
|
|
|
BRIEF SUMMARY
|
|
|
|
The FCC is studying whether to pre-empt local and state "scanner laws"
|
|
that may interfere with a licensed amateur's ability to have and transport
|
|
radios that may receive public-safety frequencies, including police, fire,
|
|
medical etc. The FCC also wants to know whether such laws impede the
|
|
activities of licensees in the General Mobile Radio Service or other
|
|
services.
|
|
|
|
The pre-emption would only be for FCC licensees; the FCC is not examining
|
|
whether to strike down the scanner laws entirely. The formal name of
|
|
this proceeding is PR Docket 91-36 In the Matter of Inquiry into the Need
|
|
to Preempt State and Local Laws Concerning Amateur Operator Use of
|
|
Transceivers Capable of Reception Beyond the Amateur Service Frequency
|
|
Allocations.
|
|
|
|
The FCC has the authority to pre-empt local and state laws where it can
|
|
be shown that such laws impede federal regulation of radio
|
|
communications and the accomplishment of legitimate federal goals. An
|
|
example of FCC pre-emption was the famous "PRB-1", where the
|
|
Commission pre-empted local laws that prevent amateurs from having
|
|
adequate antennas. PRB-1 is now a part of the Part 97 amateur rules.
|
|
|
|
The FCC has not proposed to take any specific action. It is merely
|
|
inquiring further into scanner laws after receiving some comments last
|
|
year. The comments came from hams and organizations such as ARRL,
|
|
Association of North American Radio Clubs, Associated Public Safety
|
|
Communications Officers and the Personal Radio Steering Group.
|
|
|
|
QUESTIONS
|
|
|
|
Here are the questions the FCC wants the Amateur Service, and any other
|
|
interested parties, to answer. They are taken directly from NOI Section
|
|
III, paragraph 10:
|
|
|
|
1. Is there VHF or UHF mobile (or portable) amateur equipment now being
|
|
manufactured that complies with the state and local laws in question? If
|
|
so, give the purchase costs and the make and model numbers.
|
|
|
|
2. What percentage of existing VHF or UHF mobile amateur equipment has
|
|
a reception capability (a) only on amateur service bands, (b) on the
|
|
amateur bands plus a capability just beyond the amateur bands (within 25
|
|
kHz of the band edge), and (c) on the amateur bands plus a capability on (at
|
|
the least) any of the public-safety or special emergency services
|
|
channels? What are the above percentages when calculated only in the
|
|
context of equipment that is currently being manufactured (as opposed to
|
|
equipment that no longer is manufactured or is built by an amateur)?
|
|
What are the purchase costs for such equipment?
|
|
|
|
3. What percentage of amateur operators purchase and use manufactured
|
|
mobile equipment?
|
|
|
|
4. What is necessary technically for manufacturers to produce equipment
|
|
that complies with the laws, and what are the associated costs?
|
|
|
|
5. What is required technically to modify amateur equipment that is
|
|
capable of receiving on police radio service channels or other public
|
|
safety or special emergency services channels to eliminate such reception
|
|
capability, and what is the cost associated with such a modification?
|
|
Does the intercategory sharing permitted in the private land mobile
|
|
services and the diversity of frequency restrictions throughout the
|
|
country affect the technical requirements or costs of such modifications?
|
|
|
|
6. What specific instances have occurred where the state and local laws
|
|
in question have adversely affected amateur radio operation?
|
|
|
|
7. Is there a public interest in having amateur equipment available that
|
|
can receive non-amateur frequencies, e.g. an interest in providing a pool of
|
|
equipment that facilitates emergency operations in states where local
|
|
authorities expressly desire the assistance of amateur licensees?
|
|
|
|
8. Given that the amateur radio equipment market is essentially world-
|
|
wide, what would be the effect, if any, on the availability and price of
|
|
amateur equipment if United States requirements were made more
|
|
restrictive than those of the rest of the world? Do any other countries
|
|
have restrictions on amateur radio transceiver receipt of public safety
|
|
transmissions?
|
|
|
|
9. What effect do the scanner laws have on the interstate sale of amateur
|
|
service equipment and the interstate transport of equipment by amateur
|
|
licensees?
|
|
|
|
HOW TO COMMENT
|
|
|
|
Your comments are due on or before June 7, 1991. Replies to what others
|
|
have commented are due on or before July 8, 1991. There are 3 ways to
|
|
comment:
|
|
|
|
(a) You may file informally by sending one copy of a letter. (I do not
|
|
recommend this because the FCC staff can lose your letter, misunderstand
|
|
it or misfile it.)
|
|
|
|
(b) You may file formally by sending a SIGNED ORIGINAL plus FIVE COPIES
|
|
of your comments. This is the standard way to do it.
|
|
|
|
(c) If you want each Commissioner to receive a copy of your comments,
|
|
send a SIGNED ORIGINAL plus NINE COPIES. This does not obligate
|
|
the Commissioner to retain OR EVEN READ your comments.
|
|
|
|
Tips for commenters:
|
|
|
|
It's smart to include your name and callsign.
|
|
|
|
Your comments MUST say "PR DOCKET 91-36" at a prominent place on the
|
|
first page. Preferably this should be on every page. Without this
|
|
information, your comment might not get to its proper destination. Those
|
|
FCC recycling bins are big and hungry.
|
|
|
|
My experience has shown that the following does not help the cause:
|
|
|
|
(a) Form letters, multi-party signed petitions, etc. where it
|
|
is apparent that SOMEONE ELSE has told YOU exactly what to say.
|
|
|
|
(b) Smudged pages, illegibly handwritten material, or low-density computer printout. QSL cards. Pictures of your shack, spouse, pets etc.
|
|
|
|
(c) Comments sent to your local FCC office, to the Private Radio Bureau,
|
|
to homes of FCC staff members, or other wrong addresses. Your comments
|
|
need only be addressed to:
|
|
|
|
Office of the Secretary
|
|
Federal Communications Commission
|
|
1919 M St. N.W.
|
|
Washington, D.C. 20554
|
|
|
|
Go for it!
|
|
73 de KC5CW
|