Technical Help for the FCC

[TheBigA]

I just posted this in the FCC Policy Debate section, but it's appropriate here too:

There has been a lot of criticism of the FCC in terms of their ability to make proper technical decisions. It's been pointed out that the FCC's budget has been severely cut, and so they don't have the level of technical staffing required to make proper decisions. Amazingly, someone in Congress recognized this problem, and there's a bill in the Senate aimed at rectifying that problem. It's still in committee and has a long way to go. But the fact that someone has realized this problem is a great start.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-2881

This is no guarantee they will make good hires or bring in unbiased engineers. But lately, their decisions have been based more on agendas and policies than technology. Considering the role technology plays in FCC decisions, this is long overdue.

 

[Tom Wells]

I'm favor of this, too. I would hope it can turn some attention to the badly frazzled MW situation, where the political
aims of the commission have done actual disservice to stated goals on which the agency was first commissioned.

Then there are 40 years of lamp dimmers and other noisemakers in total violation of existing rules.
I have to question why the ball got dropped so long ago, and less why it's been so politically motivated in more recent years.
Anyone else have an idea why the commission permitted all the noisemakers dveleoped since the 1960s
without proper RF noise supression?
Wouldn't they have been able to fine manufacturers in the same way they fined a radio station?

I doubt MW's woes are the basis behind this. Hard to say what else might have prompted this from any legislator,
as issues which point out this need are more typically of note to us radio geeks, not the average person.
I wonder what issue or who else is behind this? The ARRL is fiercely protective, and may have put a stop to
BPL internet application. They may be behind this.

 

[TheBigA]

Hard to say what else might have prompted this from any legislator,
as issues which point out this need are more typically of note to us radio geeks, not the average person.

I think the issue is way beyond radio.

 

[kenglish]

The FCC hasn't had the budget, or people, to enforce any Part 15 rules in years. That's why they allow manufacturers to "self-certify" their own products : .

And....that's why things like VHF-band Digital TV "don't work".
And, AM Radios "don't work".
And, shortwave radio "doesn't work".
And on, and on, and on....

(And, don't get me started on people who want to "get even" if you report their interference-causing devices.)

 

[nd2023]

The FCC hasn't had the budget, or people, to enforce any Part 15 rules in years. That's why they allow manufacturers to "self-certify" their own products : .

And....that's why things like VHF-band Digital TV "don't work".
And, AM Radios "don't work".
And, shortwave radio "doesn't work".
And on, and on, and on....

(And, don't get me started on people who want to "get even" if you report their interference-causing devices.)

Speaking of not enforcing Part 15 rules, pirate stations are proliferating.

 

[DaveBayArea]

Speaking of not enforcing Part 15 rules, pirate stations are proliferating.

Interestingly enough, I can generally receive two pirate signals on my home receiver. One is on 87.7 and one is on 104.1, and neither one is causing harmful interference to a licensed service. But I can easily identify eight stations that have been rendered unlistenable because of HD radio. More if you assume an outdoor antenna.

Dave B.

 

[Carmine5]

A few days ago a group calling itself Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum, sent a letter to Sen. Olympia Snowe, about her bill.

They said this:

"We'd like to see engineers higher up in the FCC's decision-making process, especially someone who can tell whether a spectrum-sharing proposal is likely to work. Some of the agency's recent spectrum-sharing proposals have serious flaws and the commission needs more engineering expertise."

Cases in point are found within the NBP. Chairman Genachowski, echoing a talking point in the plan, stated in a speech that the UHF spectrum is underutilized and that there are open gaps in urban areas that could be used for broadband. But what he and the plan fails to take into consideration is that these gaps are necessary for protecting co and adjacent channel TV stations in nearby communities and are even mandated by the FCC.

Engineers have already determined that the plan's suggestion that broadcast television use SFN technology will not work with 8VSB.

As the EIBASS group states:

"Unlike some attorneys, engineers know that the laws of physics are not subject to negotiation."

But another, more disturbing trend is what an Los Angeles Times editorial described as a "thuggish" tendency within the Obama Administration to intimidate entities and whole industries that have not gone along with or have been openly critical of Obama's policies. I believe we're seeing an example of it here with the FCC's plan to take back spectrum (voluntary or involuntary) from broadcast television.

When the FCC's Chief Diversity Officer, Mark Lloyd, expresses admiration for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's treatment of the broadcast industry in his country, it's time for broadcasters here to be very afraid.

c5

 

[TheBigA]

Wow...incredible information. I will add that as someone who worked a stone's throw from the Media Bureau, I can tell you that what you wrote isn't a recent phenomenon. But it's more critical now. All of the complaints I've read, whether it's about HD radio or spectrum allocation, have to do with the lack of authoritative input from engineers. And "authoritative" is the key. There needs to be a Commissioner level position that represents someone with this kind of technical knowledge.

However, I fear this bill will not get out of committee.