jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (04/03/91)
mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes: >The FCC is "investigating scanners" all right, but for the purpose of >possibly *exempting* licensed hams from *local* laws that ban scanners >in cars. Or so the ARRL reports. >If it's for real, there will be a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and a formal >comment period. Let's CONFIRM OUR FACTS before sending any letters to >Washington. Very good advice, Mike. I did something very unusual, at least for hams. I picked up the phone and called the Docket Information section of the FCC in Washington (202 632 7535). The helpful lady did a keyword search (which took almost 10 minutes.) of their docket database. The search returned ONE hit - for the 1989 proposal that was abandoned that would have required LABELING of scanners to the effect that they might be capable of receiving prohibited transmissions. This docket is LONG DEAD. NO RUMORS ON THIS ONE, PLEASE. I next called the Offfice of Engineering & Technology and spoke to a Mr. Richard Engleman who is in charge of that office. (202 653 6288). He told me that there is *NOTHING* in the works regarding scanner prohibitions and that his best guess is that the rumor mills are still rolling because of the ECPA act and because of the aborted labeling NPRM. He did say that he had heard rumor that someone in congress was interested in a scanner ban but he did not have any details and that similiar rumors are quite frequent. He next referred me to Mr Eric Malinen (202 632 7197) who is the staff engineer handling the ham radio scanner issue. Here's where all radio enthusiasts, even the anally retentive reactionaries, should listen. The FCC published on March 8th a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) regarding a possible federal preemption of state and local scanner restriction laws as applies to ham radio operators. This NOI was published in the Federal Register in Volume 56, P 9951. The PR docket number is 91-36 and the FCC Item number is 91-54. In this NOI, the FCC is soliciting ideas for what - if any - features such a pre-emption should encompass. The NOI enables the staff to decide whether or not to prepare a NPRM to go before the Commission. In other words, your intelligent and thoughtful letters on this subject will influence what the FCC will do regarding preempting state and local scanner restrictions. The comment period on this NOI is open until June 7th and the reply interval runs to July 8th. If you desire to comment on this NOI, you should type your comments and mail them to: Federal Communications Commission 1919 M Street NW Washington, DC 20554 Attn: Office of the Secretary If you want your comments to be considered informally (which means according to Mr Malinen that the letter is copied and circulated among the staff), you may submit one copy. If you want your comments to be formally considered (published in the FR, etc) you must send 5 copies. If you desire each Commissioner to receive a copy, you must submit 9 copies. The feeling I got from talking to Mr. Malinen is that the Staff's leaning is toward a total preemption which would allow no restrictions on the use of scanners in cars by hams. The rational is pretty sound. He noted that there are already laws on the book to deal with the use of devices to assist in the commission of a crime. (!) ( Imagine that! Using existing law to punish the criminals instead of new laws to punish the innocent. Perhaps that idea could bleed over to gun control?) Secondly, He noted that Amateurs are already authorized to possess transmitters and use them mobilly, and that some of which can be modified to have the capability to TRANSMIT on public service frequences. The ability to transmit carries with it far more potential to interefere with police than does the mere capability to receive, so the issue is somewhat moot. I should note that Mr. Malinen was most cooperative and articulate regarding Amateur matters. I told him that my interest in the subject was a) to help squelch the scanner ban rumor (for which he was appreciative) and b) because I am writing an article for an electronic newsletter (this article here on the net) on the subject. I asked at several stages if phone calls from interested parties would be welcome and I was assured that they are. Please be gentle to these guys. They are on our side as of now. Of course, after a few hundred idiotic letters from reactionary and uninformed hams about the imagined scanner ban arrive and have to be processed, I'm not so sure how well off we'll be. >False rumors are very expensive for us, the taxpayers. The FCC still >receives thousands of letters per year about a rumored proposal to >ban religious broadcasting -- there never was any such proposal, but >"concerned citizens" keep spreading the word. You and I have to pay the >cost of looking at the letters, hauling them out to the dump, etc. AMEN. As an aside, this (religious broadcasting) issue is causing the FCC so much trouble that if you dial the main FCC number (202 632 7000) and get the computerized answering service, you can touch "4" to hear the canned answer. I wonder if one reason that ham radio has fallen into disrepute with the FCC is because HAMs are so analy-retentive and reactionary? I wonder how many of my tax dollars are going to be wasted responding to the original post that was so recklessly posted without so much as even a phone call to verify the situation? I should note that the whole process from dialing DC directory assistance to getting the answer took perhaps 30 minutes. Is that too high a price to pay to be informed prior to starting a rumor? If it is, it's a sad commentary on ham radio. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it