[600MRG] It seems reasonable to assume UTC will continue opposition to Ham Radio 630m and 2200m operations

Fri Apr 7 19:58:48 CDT 2017

>4) Now we as RF guys know full well that the PLC could never offer
legitimate "protection" of any kind to a Part 15 user, but they said they
could and charged for it.

I've watched the UTC website content "evolve" since the comment period of
the NPRM back in 2015 when I spent a considerable amount of time digging
for dirt on who they really were.  As I mentioned in previous comments last
weekend, the UTC had a major overhaul in the last year or so, at least as
far as their talking points and notifications are concerned.

Prior to the overhaul and re-thinking of their identity and what they
represent there was nothing in their imaging or anywhere on their
literature to suggest that they were a Part-15 user.  I actually made a
print literature request that was mailed, detailing their services and one
might conclude looking at it that they were some kind of government agency
answerable to no one.  Its unclear what the fine print read on contracts
with paying customers but I suspect there were plenty of mentions that they
could not warranty incursions from licensed services.  But only the
attorney's (who were probably also engineers) probably knew it.

When the new website was released about a year or so ago, UTC's position
and branding shifted significantly such that they were going out of their
way to point out in the open that any frequencies that they were
coordinating were not protected and that users had to accept whatever
interference they encountered.  Look at the last paragraph on the PLC
database page:  http://utc.org/plc-database/ .  That rhetoric was added in
the last year.

Also changed was a strong push for IP infrastructure education and they had
many workshops and roll out meetings scheduled across the country to
discuss the implementation of network based systems for utility engineers.
That, too, was new for them.

So clearly they knew that a major change was coming that necessitated
notifications and they have been  attempting to shift some of their market
share to other technologies (which we already knew) and mitigate liability
from the impending changes to FCC regulation.

Of course this is all anecdotal but it shows a definite shift in their
business model ahead of the R&O.  They could see the writing on the wall.

73,

John

PS:  In spite of all of the negativity floating around the Internet, we are
still in very good shape.

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:03 PM, Brian, WA1ZMS <wa1zms at att.net> wrote:

> We (Part 97) are being singled out as a "special case" by UTC.  I think
> it's
> a combination the fear of the unknown and following the money.
>
> 1) UTC sells frequency coordination services for many RF bands, just one
> being PLC from 10 to 490 kHz.  Yes, it's Part 15 and they ought not be
> granted any protection in any way.....but.....the FCC has ordained the UTC
> as a frequency coordinator for much of the FCC licensed utility spectrum as
> well.
>
> 2) Those coordinations are made by charging the utilities a fee. That's the
> $.
>
> 3) The fear comes from not knowing just when and where the Part 97 users
> will show up.  The UTC knows where DGPS is and that it will be on 24/7, so
> they can tell a utility to not use a proposed PLC channel that near a DGPS
> station.  That's what the utility is paying for anyway and have come to
> expect. Enter us hams. Upsets the status quo. The UTC will be the first to
> be held accountable for QRM to a PLC system that some tiny local power
> co-operative that paid for to be coordinated.  "So why did I pay protecting
> my PLC if some ham can jam it!?!?" the utility could say.
>
> 4) Now we as RF guys know full well that the PLC could never offer
> legitimate "protection" of any kind to a Part 15 user, but they said they
> could and charged for it.
>
> 5) If we hams had the $ to offer-up to the UTC to co-ordinate us too, I'd
> bet you they'd do that too in a heartbeat.
>
>
>
> -Brian, WA1ZMS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: 600MRG [mailto:600mrg-bounces at w7ekb.com] On Behalf Of Marshall Cross
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 3:49 PM
> To: sbjohnston at aol.com
> Cc: 600mrg at w7ekb.com
> Subject: Re: [600MRG] It seems reasonable to assume UTC will continue
> opposition to Ham Radio 630m and 2200m operations
>
> And what about all the other licensed transmitters in the LF and MF bands
> like the old GWEN and DGPS transmitters and MF air and maritime beacons not
> to mention the Minuteman WS-133B MF system, etc. ? Did UTC approve them? I
> don't think so. Why are they picking on us? Marshall, W1HK, #41
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Apr 7, 2017, at 3:03 PM, "sbjohnston at aol.com" <sbjohnston at aol.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > In my work as a broadcast engineer I once received a call from a power
> company technician complaining that our AM station was "interfering" with
> one of their control carriers on a power line.  I explained that we had no
> responsibility in that kind of situation but I'd be glad to help him figure
> out what was happening.  I asked for confirmation that it was my station -
> he said he could hear our audio perfectly when he listened to the system
> with the speaker on the front of the receiving unit.  I asked what
> frequency
> their carrier system used - he said 1.31 MHz.  I then asked what form of
> modulation their system used - the answer was amplitude-modulation with
> modem tones as the audio.
> >
> > I laughed and told him I would have been surprised if they did not hear
> our 5000 watt station on 1310 kHz - they had managed to tune their system
> to
> our signal exactly and have the biggest receive antenna in town!   I
> suggested he tune their transmit and receive units to another frequency -
> one that wasn't in use already by broadcasters in our city.  He wanted to
> know how to pick a frequency.  I suggested he go out to his vehicle and
> turn
> on the radio and find a frequency that didn't have a strong station on it.
> He didn't seem to understand so I just told him a couple likely channels
> not
> near our frequency and wished him good luck.
> >
> > Point of the story? We may not find the UTC or the companies that make up
> the organization have much understanding of the RF issues involved with
> 630m
> and 2200m amateur operations.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Steve WD8DAS / WH2XHY
> >
> > sbjohnston at aol.com
> > http://www.wd8das.net/
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Radio is your best entertainment value.
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 600MRG mailing list
> > 600MRG at w7ekb.com
> > http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> 600MRG at w7ekb.com
> http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 600MRG mailing list
> 600MRG at w7ekb.com
> http://w7ekb.com/mailman/listinfo/600mrg_w7ekb.com
>