Conference vmszoo::rc

    I have read  some peoples recommendations what to include when writing
    the FCC, your senator, your representative.  I have also read
    what the AMA has suggested.  They all make sense.
    
    I would like to add some thinking to these suggestions.  That is
    that they mostly are geared to they cannot do this to use due to
    money, safety....  The bottom line is we also need to look at
    what can we do to create a win win solution, i.e. what can we do
    to satisfy the FCC Land Mobile Service and the RC hobby
    needs/requirements so that we all win.   If we go head to head with
    them, looking for a win-loose, communications is more important
    for the countries infrastructure then RC planes.
    
    The bottom line is to also add something to the letters that talks
    about reconciling, meeting everyones needs....
    
    Just thinking,
    
    	Doug
    

    Doug,
    
    	I agree with your "philosophy" but I'm a little hard pressed to
    come up with a comprimise. Regardless of what the FCC's good intentions
    or even naviety might be, what their doing is giving the rest of the
    band to the mobile phone folks, and leaving us with a non workable
    situation. Unless we all have TX'S that are EXACTLY DEAD ON the 
    assigned channel, we'll be bleeding all over each other and shooting
    each other down. The technology just isn't that exact is the typical
    modelers budget range. Even the big boys like TV and radio stations
    have to spend BIG bucks over and above their xmiter costs to insure
    they stay on frequency.
    
    A possible solution would be to "split" the band. Give them half and
    we'll keep half and stay out of each others hair. But then what about
    all the people that went out and bought equipment on the half that
    goes away??????? The only reason they bought radio's on those channels
    in the first place was because of the frequency shuffle the FCC just
    got done with for 1991.
    
    To tell you the truth, it wouldn't suprise me in the least if the FCC
    didn't know about this many years ago and the 1991 shuffle was just
    a step towards what their doing now.
    
    Anyway, if anyone has any suggestions on how to win win, please enter
    them here.
    
    Steve

    re -1
    
>    situation. Unless we all have TX'S that are EXACTLY DEAD ON the 
>    assigned channel, we'll be bleeding all over each other and shooting
>    each other down. The technology just isn't that exact is the typical
>    modelers budget range. Even the big boys like TV and radio stations
>    have to spend BIG bucks over and above their xmiter costs to insure
>    they stay on frequency.
    
     Even if we had TX's that were 'EXACTLY DEAD ON', we would still be at
    the mercy of the mobil phone frequency TX's.  They're not as narrow
    banded as the FCC would lead us to believe.  Our flying field in VT is
    next to a trucking business that uses both cellular phones and radios
    and we've seen what they're effect on on wide band and narrow band R/C
    radios can do at close proximity.
    
    Another mode of action is to have your local hobby shop dealer send in
    letters stating the effect of what this legislation will do to his
    business and customers.  Our dealers are members of the National Hobby
    Shop Retailers Association and they have already started sending in
    letters stating the effects of this legislation.  In the finalee of
    this I hope something can be reached that benefits both parties
    involved.  But gut feeling says NOT, and we're on the short end of the
    stick!
    
    Robert

    Of course we could all just fly HAM!.
    
    
    WAS
    
    
    
    												
    				IT
    
    
    							something
    
    				
    
    
    
    									I 
    
    
    said........................
    
    
    

re: .4

That is something I've been planning anyway...  The no-code technicians
license covers the ham RC bands...


re: the whole thing

The other side is not ready to compromise and seek a win-win.  As much as
it would be nice they don't want it -- if they did they would have come out
in the open with this and had a long public comment periond.  Instead they
tried/are trying to sneak this through without a lot of fanfare.

There are two things that need to happen.  We can't win in this short time 
period, so what we need is some sort of legal injunction against the closing
of the public comment period.  If the AMA and SFA can get (through their
lawyers of course) a judge to rule that the public comment period was not
long enough (etc) than we can mount a better more organized offensive.
The backers of this proposal don't want that.

What the backers of this proposal also like to avoid (in general) is publicity
about such things (as it is usually negative -- we need "60 minutes" on this!).

What the AMA and SFA need to do is to get all the clubs to get their local
media (TV and print) involved in covering this.  This will generate public
sympathy as well as uncomfortably warm publicity for the backers.  The AMA
and SFA need to do is get national media on this (like "60 minutes", the print
media, etc).  If we can get enough public sympathy and make it hot enough for
the backers of this in the media/public eye we have a chance.

If somebody can send me FAX numbers for the AMA and SFA I will fax them these
ideas of mine about getting the media involved.  (Being in Germany for now
makes it more difficult to find out such things for me).

I sent 7 letters yesterday (almot all identical, but each personalized for the
recipient -- the original letter was mine).  I sent one to the FCC, one to Uncle
Bill the Prez (defender of the little guy :-), one each to my former senators
in MASS Kennedy and Kerry, one to the Rep from where my folks are in Mass, Mehan,
and one to the senator  in Utah, my "other" home (Hatch) and to the rep
from the Provo/orem area in Utah (Bill Orton).  I plan on sending one to the
new senator in Utah too, but just got his name today through email.  The bad
news was that it cost almost $9 to send the letters :-(

Chad
New Englander at heart, Utahn from necessity, in Munich for work

    Ham ain't that great either.  I have personally seen voice received on
    the 6 meter band and I know a guy that got shot down twice last year.
    
    A compromise solution would be to give up half of our spectrum and
    group our frequencies at 10KHz.  The thing that upsets me the most
    about our present situation is that they gave us exclusive frequencies
    at 20KHz spacing so the manufacturers designed the lowest cost solution
    for that.  Now they have allowed Pagers to use channels right between
    ours at 10KHz spacing!  They essentially took half our spectrum already
    without even telling us about it.  Now they want to take the rest.  If
    they gave us a piece of spectrum, we could decide how many channels to
    have vs the spacing.  The frequency spectrum is a valuable resource and
    we will constantly be fighting for a small piece of it.
    
    Charlie
    

I got the White House's CompuServe address off usenet and sent a copy 
to them also. Initially it failed because the mailbox was full but it 
succeeded this morning and I got the following auto-reply back. The 
address is listed in the From: of the reply.

Jim

From:	DECWRL::"75300.3115@CompuServe.COM" "The White House"  3-FEB-1993 08:22:10.09
To:	"Jim 3D::Reith DTN 223-2021 MLO1-2/C37  03-Feb-1993 0756" <3d::reith>
CC:	
Subj:	Re: I feel the president should be aware of... (FCC PR DOCKET 92-235)

      Thank you for your recent electronic mail message to the White
 House.  As soon as practicable it will be sent to the appropriate office
 for consideration.  You should receive a written reply in due course.  
 Unfortunately, we are not yet ready to respond substantively
 to your message by electronic mail.  We appreciate your patience as we
 implement our new electronic systems.

          As you know, this is the first time in history that the
 White House has been connected to the public through electronic
 mail.  We welcome your comments and suggestions for ways to improve
 your Public Access E-mail program.

      Regards,
      Jock Gill
      Electronic Publishing
      Public Access E-mail
      The White House
      Washington, D.C.

      75300.3115@Compuserve.com
      CLINTON PZ on America Online

 PS: If you did not include your U.S. mail return address in your
 message and you want a reply, please send your message again and
 include that information.



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: by enet-gw.pa.dec.com; id AA21075; Wed, 3 Feb 93 05:18:12 -0800
% Received: by ihc.compuserve.com (5.65/5.930129sam) id AA13265; Wed, 3 Feb 93 08:18:11 -050
% Date: 03 Feb 93 08:12:20 EST
% From: The White House <75300.3115@CompuServe.COM>
% To: "Jim 3D::Reith DTN 223-2021 MLO1-2/C37  03-Feb-1993 0756" <3d::reith>
% Subject: Re: I feel the president should be aware of... (FCC PR DOCKET 92-235)
% Message-Id: <930203131220_75300.3115_CHE56-8@CompuServe.COM>

    The AMA frequency coordinator(Lon Sauter) for my district spoke
    at our club meeting last night about the proposed FCC changes.
    
    He did not think that the impact would be too great based on the
    latest AMA update.  According to this update, the extra channels
    would be used for walkie-talkie type units, typically seen on
    contractors sites(1 watt).  They are not 5 watt cellular phones
    as rumored.
    
                                                            Regards,
    
                                                            Jim

Regardless, they are going to be so close to our frequencies (read inside 
our 10kHz narrow banding) that we won't be able to coexist.

    Re: -1
    
    Jim,
    
       I am not knowledgeable about radio communications, so I can only
    repeat what we were told at the meeting.  Lon had a diagram which
    came from the AMA showing where we are now and where we would be
    if the changes are implemented.  He said while we(the AMA) must
    remain vigilant about the spectrum, the changes proposed would not
    have a significant effect on us.  He said he would expect more
    accidents to result from club members accidently turning on radios
    in the pits than from interference caused by the new proposed
    equipment. The information he had received from the AMA arrived
    yesterday, so it is the latest.  I was quite relieved after hearing
    this information.  He also mentioned the letter writing campaign
    has had a good effect on both congress and the FCC.
    
    
                                                       Regards,
    
                                                       Jim
    
                      

I'm not sure we can live with overlapping channels. It's tough enough with 
what we have now without having somebody LEGALLY stepping on your frequency. 
I don't see that as a solution. I think he's taking the wind out of the 
sails prematurely. Those channels will become unsafe and we will have no 
recourse but to either redesign our gear to be ultra-narrow banded (to 
2.5kHz?) or move to the remaining 19(?) clear channels in the high band.

I think that's a non-solution.

    Re: -1
    
    The important points delivered were:
    
    1) The new equipment is low power(1 watt)
    2) It is not mobile- he described it as walkie-talkies with rubber duck
       antennas primarily being used on construction sites.  Read- not
       cellular phones!!!!
    
    * Your district frequency coordinator should be able to provide you
      with a copy of the letter he received yesterday from the AMA.  It
      contains good news on this issue.
    
    
                                                         Regards,
    
                                                         Jim

>    The important points delivered were:
    
>    1) The new equipment is low power(1 watt)

and we're running 1/4-1/2 a watt on our stuff. 

>    2) It is not mobile- he described it as walkie-talkies with rubber duck
>       antennas primarily being used on construction sites.  Read- not
>       cellular phones!!!!

But construction sites are mobile, just not at "car" speeds. If we have a 
range that is limited by being able to see the plane, who's going to 
guarantee that there isn't a new construction within twice that distance
of your field (or farther due to their higher power). He only has to equal 
your signal strength (if that) to cause your signal to be garbled. It takes 
more power to "punch thru" (read your Tx) than it does to "scramble" (read 
their effect). Due to the nature of these things, they might be silent most 
of the day and then pop up suddenly so having an analyzer doesn't guarantee 
the frequency will STAY clear.

Our transmitters can now use "rubber duck" antennas with no loss of range.

If there's overlap, it isn't a solution except in limited rural settings 
where there's no construction for literally miles.

Are these the same units security uses to walk around our building? This 
eliminates urban flying sites pushed out towards industrial sites due to 
noise.

I can't picture a general solution with overlap working. They won't REQUIRE 
us to give up the band but we won't survive on it for long. How many people 
remember 27mHz and the CB problems when they changed to 40 channels?

    re: -1
    
    Jim,
    
       As I stated I don't know much about radio communications.  This
    guy Lon has been servicing RC radios for 21 years.  He is an
    official AMA sticker station and is factory authorized by
    several manufacturers to do service work.  He had a very sophisiticated
    spectrum analyzer at the meeting to check our radios.
    
    He claims that he tested the old 27mhz receivers numerous times on the
    hood of a car with a 40 channel CB radio without interference.
    
    Please don't interpret this as an afront to your position.  But it
    appears that there certainly is disagreement among the "experts".
    Lon is considered an expert in this field.  He may be wrong, I 
    certainly wouldn't know.  
    
    
                                                     Regards,
    
                                                     Jim
    

    Interestingly enough, we are not the only ones to be affected!
    
    It turns out that this same proposal will also really screw up all of
    the equipment we currently use in the civil/EMS communications.  They
    are talking that the changes would require virtually all new equipment
    (pagers, dispatch radios, vehicle to vehicle) and would result in a 
    significant expense to ALL taxpayers...
    
    Boy, it really sounds like the screwed this one up...  At least now I
    get to write *another* letter from the aspect of public safety and
    EMS effects...
    
    jeff
    

>       As I stated I don't know much about radio communications.  This
>    guy Lon has been servicing RC radios for 21 years.  He is an
>    official AMA sticker station and is factory authorized by
>    several manufacturers to do service work.  He had a very sophisiticated
>    spectrum analyzer at the meeting to check our radios.

These are the same people that allowed the 2IM problem go through and still 
somewhat deny that a problem exists. We would be sitting in a 2.5kHz band 
between these channels with a reciever sensitive to a 10kHz wide band. The
analyzer is a neat tool but the further away your plane is from your 
transmitter the more sensitive your plane will be to those overlapping 
signals.

His definition of "no problem" might be different from ours. He might mean 
that we just need to make the Rx narrower band to exist in 2.5kHz or retune 
to a different frequency. To him this is just going into the shop and 
retuning/tweaking. To us it means sending our equipment to someone like him 
(a possible motive?)

Can Charlie Watt or Bill Lewis tell me if I'm missing something?

Not claiming to be an expert but I can't see a case where overlap would be 
acceptable with the current equipment. I will call to get a copy of the 
reasoning behind this. I HOPE this doesn't imply that the AMA is softening 
their stand and allowing this to now happen. I would be VERY unhappy to hear 
that.

>    He claims that he tested the old 27mhz receivers numerous times on the
>    hood of a car with a 40 channel CB radio without interference.

The problem depended on the channel. There were two out of 6 (I believe) 
that were still available and the ILLEGAL (power) CB usage made even those 
unusable. Like 2IM, you needed to understand the problem to get the right 
combination to cause failure.

>    Please don't interpret this as an afront to your position.  

Hey, no problem, I just don't understand how this can be true. Seems to me 
this is like saying you can have two pilots on the same channel (almost in 
this case) as long as one is AM and the other is FM. A little knowledge can 
be a dangerous thing. I have what I consider an understanding of the 
situation but nothing says it's right. I need to ask which and why and how 
to justify it more before I say "nevermind".

>    But it
>    appears that there certainly is disagreement among the "experts".

I'm not claiming to be an expert but I don't understand how the situation 
has changed significantly enough to warrant an "all clear". Does this mean 
that the AMA is now saying that they spent all this money to "warn" us for 
nothing?

>    Lon is considered an expert in this field.  He may be wrong, I 
>    certainly wouldn't know.  

I assume there were "experts" in the initial stages too. What matters is 
which group is now shown to be wrong. maybe the AMA guys that put out the 
initial warning were wrong and the FCC and mobile communications people had 
properly considered our position in the first place. I'm not going to bet 
the farm on that case.

    I strongly agree with Jim that this would still be a problem for us. 
    First off, 1 Watt is still more than what our TX's put out.  Mobile
    Walkie Talkies are only on intermittently so the interference will be
    hard to pinpoint as well.  Who controls where these things get used? 
    We have guidelines for how close flying fields can be and not have
    interference from our own low power tx's.  It seems to me that we could
    have interference from these devices if they are at that kind of
    distance (3 miles) and happen to be on one of our frequencies. 
    (remember that they could be right on our frequencies if they are not
    centered)  Another problem is illegal units that are greater then 1
    Watt.  This happens with paging systems and CB's all the time.  It is
    nearly impossible to control.  How many potential construction sites
    could be within 3 miles of your flying site?????
    
    
    Charlie
    

    Well, I sure hope that other senators are not responding the way that
    Bob Smith (R-NH) has....  Yesterday I got the following letter...
    
    {text removed}
    With the advent of many new communications technologies, the FCC feels
    that this proposal will promote a more efficient use of the channels
    and facilitate the use of these new technologies.  The proposed FCC
    changes to the 72-76 MHz seek to take advantage of efficientcy
    standards based on narrowband technology.  Over a twenty year period,
    the 20khz mobile channels in the spectrum would be replaced with 5khz
    mobile channels.
    
    The FCC feels that this will cause little or no conflict between
    private land mobile users and radio control users.  In fact, they cite
    the different channels the two users utilize, the different
    environments in which they operate, and the stricter technical
    requirements associated with narrowband technology which should ensure
    adequate separation between land mobil and radio control users.
    
    I hope that this sufficiently answers your concerns regarding this
    matter.  I certainly understand your apprehension over changes to the
    spectrum which, if not done properly, could have serious consequences
    for your aircraft as well as you and your fellow operators. 
    Nevertheless, based on the enclosed response from the FCC, I am
    satisfied that they are proceeding in a prudent manner.
    
    If you have further concerns I strongly recommend that you file a
    formal comment with the FCC during this comment period.
    
    "
    
    
    Well, he is not going to be much help....  He did include a a 2 page
    letter from the FCC to Smith, as well as a 2 page "question and answer"
    and a graph...  As I get more time today, I will type in the other 
    stuff... 
    
    Basically, though, it says that the new changes won't have any adverse
    effect on RC.  (Hah!!)
    
    jeff
    

That's about the same dance we got out of Rep. Joel Hefly, CO.  Hefly
did say that he would keep an eye on the situation and represent us if
needed.  But he also has been involved in local modelling activities
as a guest.

Looks like the very same technology that made 1991 cheap and easy is
now squeezing us a little further.  

    Jeff,
    
    	I would strongly recommend that you give Bob Underwood at the AMA
    a call and let him know about this response.
    
    	According to the last message Underwood put out, this whole thing
    was started by some FCC marketing dork who was pretty much acting on
    his own. He further stated that the FCC AND the mobile phone companies
    were AGAINST this new allocation.
    
    	If the FCC is now sending senators letters stating just the
    opposite, I would think the AMA would like to know that.
    
    Steve

    Following Steve's suggestion, I just got off the phone with Bob
    Underwood.  
    
    According to Bob, my senator is sending out relatively old
    information..
    
    Bob briefly went through what has transpired over the last 6 weeks 
    including:
    
    	1-March - FCC Panel Hearing on the proposal...  19 speakers, all of
    them against the proposal because of the timeframe and econimic impact.
    FCC states "lets forget about the timeframe and try to come to 
    agreement on what the rules should be."  (Airtronics and Futaba attend
    in conjunction with AMA).
    
    	11-March - AMA meets with FCC.  FCC was defensive about the letter
    writing campaign.  AMA reminded FCC of a meeting last year that
    specifically asked if there were any such proposals in the works.
    AMA granted permission to do testing and present their results. 
    Testing to start in Muncie in a couple of months.  AMA points out
    several technical flaws in the proposal.
    
    	18-March - AMA sends updated information to all members of
    congress.
    
    
    
    So, are we out of the woods yet??  No.  But the AMA was certainly aware
    of the information that is being sent around and is trying to make sure
    the right message is getting out there.
    
    cheers,
    jeff
    

    Thanks Jeff. I appreciate the effort. I'm GLAD that the FCC is 
    defensive about the letter writing campaign. Sounds like it was
    a good REMINDER who they work for.
    
    S.

    
     Last night at our club meeting there was a presentation from one
    of our club officers, Rich. He presented the most complete
    technically accurate responce to the FCC's proposal I have ever seen.
    It was even better than what has been presented by the AMA from what I
    have seen in the MA mag. The club decided to take Rich's 10 page
    proposal and send it off to the FCC as our clubs' input. This was not
    just input to why the FCC should not do what they are doing but a possible
    alternative solution. I am not tecnical enought to explain all the
    details but Rich is. Rich's proposal is a win-win solution for
    everyone. Actually I don't understand why this topic has not been taken
    more seriously and more aggressively and with better communication. I
    believe its because of the complexity and people just don't have
    enought information to understand all the technical jargon. This is a
    very complex issue. We will be submitting a copy to the AMA for there
    inputs.
    The point is that if other clubs would do the same we the members would
    have a voice that could not just be ignored. Did you ever get a reply
    back form the FCC? I didn't and its been almost 4 months. Tax dollars
    at work again.  
                   

    Sounds interesting...  Can you post a copy of it here or send them to
    us via interoffice mail???
    
    Thanks,
    jeff
    

    I would be interested in letter that is being sent also. Please
    publish it here so interested parties can see it and reply.
    
    		Steve M....

    I don't have a soft copy only a hard copy of the document. Since my
    typing is limited to 2 fingers, typing 10 pages would take me till next
    year. I will make copies and send it interoffice if you supply the
    address. P.S. I don't always get to read this note file everyday so it
    take me awhile to update.

    I sent numerous letters to Whashington.  I received the following reply
    from Martin Meehan (5th district).  I only am including the meat:
    
    "..However, even if radio control airplanes were operated on the same
    frequency as a remote control cranes, for instance, the plane should
    remain under control of the Hobbyist as long as the model stays closer
    to the Hobbyist than to the crane.  The FCC's proposal also puts a 2.5
    kHz separation between land mobile and radio control operators, so
    serious problems seem unlikely."
    
    The FCC's plan may make it more difficult to fly several dozen planes
    together in a small space, but radio control hobbyists would still have
    19 frequencies available.  The number of frequencies does not appear
    wholly unreasonable to me, especially since flying more than 19 model
    airplanes in a confined area at the same time may present its own
    hazards unrelated to the availability or radio frequesncies"
    
    
    
    If anyone has a retort to this please let me know.   Thanks Doug
    

You might mention that the current radio technology has only a single 
frequency capability so the frequency choice is made at the time of 
purchase. This can be changed at a non-trivial cost to the user. The 
technology to have tunable frequencies at the field has been shown 
but isn't commercially available, yet and is another additional cost. 
The first paragraph you entered is just plain wrong. The differences 
in power will effect it and what it really means is that while we 
will be fine for takeoff and flying close, if we wander out a ways we 
might suddenly discover a new interference source (a new construction 
site) over the horizon.

    Also, the way you find out you're having a problem is a little risky
    and expensive!
    
    This is obviously written by someone who's been convinced by someone
    that we don't matter.  
    
    Charlie
    

>                                             <<< Note 1488.27 by WMOIS::ALDEN "Doug" >>>
>                                                    -< A CONGRESSMAN'S OPINION >-
>
>    I sent numerous letters to Whashington.  I received the following reply
>    from Martin Meehan (5th district).  I only am including the meat:
>    
>    "..However, even if radio control airplanes were operated on the same
>    frequency as a remote control cranes, for instance, the plane should
>    remain under control of the Hobbyist as long as the model stays closer
>    to the Hobbyist than to the crane.  The FCC's proposal also puts a 2.5
>    kHz separation between land mobile and radio control operators, so
>    serious problems seem unlikely."

Unlikely is not good enough - loss of control can cost several hundred dollars
and several hundred hours of work and perhaps injury or loss of life.
    
>    The FCC's plan may make it more difficult to fly several dozen planes
>    together in a small space, but radio control hobbyists would still have
>    19 frequencies available.  The number of frequencies does not appear
>    wholly unreasonable to me, especially since flying more than 19 model
>    airplanes in a confined area at the same time may present its own
>    hazards unrelated to the availability or radio frequesncies"

Right now we have 50 frequencies - to change frequencies can cost upwards
of $100 per radio.  For me to get off channel 34 for example I would have
to purchase a channel 34 transmitter module ($50) and five channel 34 
receiver crystals at $10.00 each.  Numbers aren't exact but trust me
I just went thru this to fly at the NATS last summer.
    
>    If anyone has a retort to this please let me know.   Thanks Doug

If we didn't think we were being wronged we would not have sent mail in
the first place.

Bye          --+--
Kay R. Fisher  |
---------------O---------------
################################################################################