Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

In the matter of: ) ) 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review— ) WT Docket No. 98-182 47 CFR Part 90—Private Land Mobile ) RM-9222 Radio Services ) ) Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise ) PR Docket No. 92-235 the Private Land Mobile Radio Services and ) Modify the Policies Governing Them ) ) and ) ) Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency ) Assignment Policies of the ) Private Land Mobile Services )

COMMENTS ON THE PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION

Filed by: Scott R. Havens 2203 Whitney Place Valrico, FL 33594-4163 Telephone: (813) 684-2611 E-mail: [email protected]

Date: 31 December 2000 2

I. BACKGROUND OF THE COMMENTER

I, Scott R. Havens, am the holder of General Radiotelephone Operator’s Certificate (GROL) number

PG-7T-9701, as well as Second Class Radiotelegraph Certificate number T2-GB-050798. In addition, I am the Extra Class licensee of Amateur Radio station AB2V, which is active on various HF, VHF, and UHF bands, and has been in regular operation for more than 30 years. My commercial radio experience has included service as a radiotelegraph operator at the former marine radio station WPD in Tampa, Florida, as well as performing repairs and adjustments on CW and FM communications equipment. I also have a long- standing hobby of monitoring VHF and UHF radio frequencies, with special emphasis on the so-called

“color dot” business band frequencies. This practice extends back more than 10 years. I am a frequent user of the Family Radio Service (FRS) channels and Class D (27 MHz) Citizens Band (CB), and I have begun to actively experiment with the newly authorized Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS) channels in the 151 and 154 MHz bands. In addition to my on-air activities, I currently serve as Public Information

Coordinator (PIC) for the West Central Florida Section of the National Association for Amateur Radio

(ARRL) and am on the Board of Directors of the Brandon Amateur Radio Society in Brandon, Florida. 3

II. EFFECTS ON CURRENT BUSINESS USERS FROM PERMITTING MURS TO COEXIST

It is my considered opinion that Motorola’s claim in their Petition for Reconsideration, stating that

“...consumer use of these frequencies will seriously degrade the quality of service that business and industrial users expect on these frequencies and... will undermine the ability of these frequencies to serve professional communications needs,” is largely without merit. Admittedly, with the removal of licensing requirements and the expected availability of consumer-oriented radio transceivers specifically marketed for MURS operation, the number of users of these frequencies will increase. This will carry with it the potential for increased interference. However, the large number of unlicensed users already on the “color dot” frequencies has not posed a serious problem in most areas of the country; and there is no reason to believe that the existence of MURS as a consumer radio service will significantly worsen this problem, especially if manufacturers make a serious effort (at the point of sale and in product documentation) to educate the public on the need to share the channels with current business users.

Motorola claims, in its most recent filing1, that “the final rule [authorizing the Multi-Use Radio Service] does not take into consideration the needs of industrial and business users” [of the frequencies in question2]. However, the company fails to recognize that FCC rules already afford protection of licensed radio users against deliberate or malicious interference. The sentiments expressed in Motorola’s Petition stand in direct contradiction to the statements the company made in its original Comments3 on WT Docket

98-182 and its subsequent Reply Comments4. In those documents, Motorola “broadly support[ed] the elimination of licensing requirements for the five MURS frequencies, as well as for several UHF low power frequencies. The company admitted that, given the prevailing operating practices on the “color dot” frequencies, “…licensing serves little, if any, purpose” and recommended “…that the licensing requirements applicable to these frequencies be eliminated.” This position was maintained in spite of

1 Petition for Reconsideration, dated November 13, 2000 2 151.820, 151.880, 151.940, 154.570, and 154.600 MHz. 3 Dated January 19, 1999. 4 Dated February 3, 1999. 4

objections by the American Petroleum Institute (API), and included a claim that removal of the licensing requirement would “…serve the public interest because there is significant consumer demand for unlicensed business frequencies.” (Emphasis added.) The API’s objections were dismissed on the basis that “these channels [would] remain available for use by API members” after the licensing requirements were removed. Motorola even suggested that “elimination of the licensing requirement as applied to these frequencies [would] speed the availability of the channels for API members and other users.” (Emphasis added.) Now that those “other users” are poised to take shared possession of the frequencies Motorola fought to free of licensing regulations, the company wished to pull them back into the business band “fold,” thereby denying that “significant consumer demand” because it does not necessarily equate with a business or industrial demand.

Even if the potential for interference increases, there are several factors that militate against the likelihood that any irreparable damage will be done to validly licensed business users. One factor is the difference between the Part 95 technical requirements for MURS equipment versus the Part 90 requirements for equipment formerly sold for use on these frequencies. (In this, I support the petition of Mr. William C.

Easterday5, in which he proposes a “grandfather clause” to allow current business licensees to continue using the MURS frequencies with their existing equipment.) The wider deviation limits permitted under

Part 90 make it likely that a pre-MURS transceiver will outperform a new MURS radio, assuming that the signal strengths are comparable. Couple this with the fact that many commercial applications are intended to cover a very limited area (inside a store, for example), and the chance of serious interference decreases even more. (In a separate but related issue, I also wish to express my opinion that, while it may be appropriate to require equipment specifically designed for MURS operation to meet more stringent requirements that the prior generation of commercial transceivers, I do not feel that it is appropriate or practical for the Commission to require different specifications (transmitter bandwidth, for example) on different MURS channels. One set of specifications should be sufficient on all MURS radio frequencies.)

5 Petition for Reconsideration, dated November 13, 2000. 5

Other factors suggesting that interference will be minimal are (1) the line-of-sight character of VHF radio propagation, (2) the low power levels authorized for MURS equipment, and (3) the easy availability of squelch coding technologies, such as the continuous-tone coded squelch system (CTCSS) and digital-coded squelch (DCS). By judicious use of squelch codes, coupled with education of new MURS users about FCC anti-interference regulations and the requirement to listen before beginning to transmit, I believe problems can be largely avoided in all but the most congested areas.

Similar fears about the loss of frequency usability for business purposes were voiced by General Mobile

Radio Service (GMRS) users when FRS was implemented. This service, which shares the seven GMRS interstitial channels, and also includes their (previously unused) paired frequencies, was expected to pose a serious problem for licensed GMRS stations. At present, even after FRS has become popular with families all over the United States, I have noted very little interference with GMRS operations anywhere except in the immediate vicinity of attractions such as amusement parks. A similar situation can be predicted for business users of the MURS frequencies, especially considering that a large proportion of MURS operations will likely occur outside of normal business hours and in locations (e. g., rural recreation areas, residential areas, between vehicles, and so on) where the majority of business systems are not expected to provide reliable coverage. The fact that most business users have CTCSS or DCS enabled on their equipment provides additional protection against reception of unwanted signals.

Further weakening Motorola’s claims of harm to existing users is the fact that at least some of the recently allocated MURS frequencies are extremely lightly populated at the present time. A spot check of Percon

Corporation’s online frequency database failed to find any current licensees on any of the three 151 MHz frequencies, even in such populous areas as Queens County (New York), Cook County (Illinois), Marin

County (California), Cobb County (Georgia), and Dade County (Florida). Checking the FCC’s own

“official” online database shows that each of these three frequencies has fewer than 50 licensees nationwide. Hence, I conclude that, in the case of the 151 MHz frequencies, at least, very little harm can be done to a business radio community that hardly even exists in the first place. 6

In all fairness, I must admit that the 154 MHz frequencies do have a large number of existing users. These take in a wide variety of applications, including schools, stores, surveying companies, factories, and restaurant drive-through systems, among others. If the Commission is vitally concerned about protecting these users, then it would be possible to mandate that all MURS radios must have a busy channel lockout

(BCLO) feature, at least on the 154 MHz channels. I support user education as a better solution to this problem, but mandatory BCLO would be one way of preventing, for example, a fast food restaurant’s drive through operation from being completely disrupted by a MURS user next door.

I would ask the Commission to recognize the fact that MURS, as it is currently structured, only comprises five out of a much larger number of available business band frequencies. Some business users will no doubt wish to move away from channels that are shared by the general public, but many options are available, including a significant number in the 150 to 155 MHz range. Modern technology makes reprogramming to another frequency a quick and simple process in most cases. I would encourage the

Commission to make the necessary license modifications quick and easy as well, perhaps to the extent of waiving any fees that might otherwise be charged to licensees wishing to change from a MURS frequency to another business band channel.

It is my opinion that MURS users can coexist with current business band users, and that they will eventually develop a unique niche in the world of personal communications. The higher output power and slightly greater range of VHF (as opposed to UHF) will make MURS the service of choice where FRS (and perhaps GMRS) is not quite sufficient to cover the distance required. At the same time, the limited range and the absence of atmospheric phenomena will make it more useful than Class D CB for personal and recreational applications. The higher anticipated equipment prices may also encourage the use of MURS by a more responsible and mature clientele than is sometimes found using the readily-available $20 to $40

FRS transceivers. 7

Another observation is that the 151 MHz MURS frequencies are subject to a great deal of intermodulation and interference from paging transmitters in the 152 MHz range. Because of this, some of them are not very desirable for business band operations, particularly in urban areas. Opening them to general use by the public might even improve their usability by encouraging the development of new technologies and by promoting more responsible and efficient operation by paging system licensees.

Far from resulting in “chaos on the airwaves,” a responsible implementation of MURS could also stimulate a renewed interest in licensed, legal conventional (i. e., non-trunked) business radio systems, just as the success of FRS has led to a greater interest in GMRS. Given the amount of unlicensed operation now occurring on the “color dot” frequencies, it seems unlikely that returning these frequencies to Part 90 would serve any useful purpose. Barring a major enforcement initiative requiring huge amounts of resources deployed in all parts of the country, I do not see how the Commission can effectively restore these frequencies to their former status as business-only frequencies. If that is not done, I believe that

“focus[ing] on other ways to reduce the administrative burdens associated with licensing users onto these frequencies” would be a wasted effort. 8

III. REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF PUBLIC TELEPHONE INTERCONNECTIONS

I agree with the contentions of Motorola and the Public Radio Steering Group (PRSG)6 that the connection of MURS stations to the public switched telecommunications network (PSTN) should be prohibited.

Several other options are available to persons desiring cordless telephone service, including cellular and

PCS telephone systems, as well as personal cordless phones operating in the 43-50 MHz, 902-928 MHz, and 2.4 GHz frequency ranges. These existing telephone systems offer better performance than could be expected in a 150 MHz half-duplex “phone patch” installation. Allowing such MURS-PSTN interconnects would also degrade the effectiveness of the five MURS channels as short-range mobile-oriented communications options, and could cause technical problems in the existing landline communications system. I therefore recommend against allowing connections to the telephone network.

6 Petition for Reconsideration, dated November 13, 2000. 9

IV. REGARDING THE USE OF MOBILE RELAY (REPEATER) STATIONS

Because of the limited number of frequencies currently allocated to MURS, I agree with the PRSG recommendation that mobile relay (repeater) operation on those frequencies be disallowed at the present time. Besides the lack of sufficient channels for repeater pairing, the establishment of repeaters under the current structuring of MURS would detract from the usability of the channels for the low-power, short- range radio-to-radio communications that I believe the FCC intended when it authorized MURS. Similarly, using these frequencies for store-and-forward packetized digital data (or simplex voice repeater) systems would be disruptive to the majority of simplex voice-only users, and should be disallowed.

My use of the word “disallowed,” rather than “prohibited,” carries an intentional implication that, unlike the PRSG, I believe that some form of mobile relay operation might be appropriate in the future. My recommendation is that permission for such operation be withheld by the Commission until such time as

MURS achieves a sufficient level of maturity to warrant the allocation of additional channels. If and when that occurs, it might be advisable to allow the use of low-powered portable repeaters with clearly defined limitations and technical requirements. These could be very convenient for coordinating public events within a small geographical area, and for handling emergency communications. I therefore would like to see repeater operation left as an option for future implementation. Until such time as MURS repeaters can be authorized, I believe users who require wide area coverage can find what they need in existing GMRS facilities or on business frequencies where higher power levels are allowed. 10

V. REGARDING ANTENNA HEIGHTS AND EFFECTIVE RADIATED POWER LIMITATIONS

I agree with PRSG’s recommendation that the current power limitation of two watts effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) be replaced by a simple limit of two watts RF output power, as measured at the transceiver’s antenna connector. Unless the Commission intends to require fixed, non-removable antennas

(similar to those used on FRS radios), the EIRP specification poses an unwieldy and impractical burden on manufacturers, servicers, and users of MURS equipment. As a licensed radio technician, I cannot adjust a

MURS radio to meet the requirement of two watts EIRP without carrying my test equipment to the user’s actual operating site. In addition to the simple output power adjustment, I would have to calculate the feedline losses, antenna design gain, and altitude gain, so that the radio could be adjusted to produce the correct amount of output power. Requiring a two-watt EIRP limit also conflicts with the Commission’s own regulations for MURS (see section 95.649), in that a radio could not be designed to meet the maximum EIRP limit under all conditions without incorporating some means of increasing its power output to compensate for lossy antennas and negative altitude effects. Thus, leaving the power specification as is leads to ambiguity in the rules and makes an accurate adjustment of radio equipment both difficult and expensive. I fully endorse the PRSG recommendation to limit MURS radios to 2 watts transmitter output power with a maximum of 5 watts EIRP, as might be achieved using a reasonable external antenna system.

In another departure from the PRSG’s recommendations, I see no urgent need for MURS antenna heights to be limited by regulation. I agree that the current limitations for CB stations would probably be acceptable for most stations, but I do not see a need to formally impose such a restriction. In practicality, the number of stations that would attempt to erect antennas more than 60 feet above ground or 20 feet above existing man-made structures would be exceedingly small. The low power levels involved would make it prohibitively expensive for most users to install an antenna system that could overcome the losses present in most available transmission lines. For a radio installation to be cost-effective, the cost of the antenna clearly must be commensurate with the overall price and intended capabilities of the finished system. This is not compatible with the erection of high-altitude, high-gain antennas for MURS stations that cannot use 11

more than two watts anyway. If the Commission is persuaded that a height restriction and/or maximum distance between the control point and the radiating element is in the best interest of the Multi-Use Radio

Service, then I would support a regulation no more stringent than that imposed on Citizens Band stations. 12

VI. REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MULTI-BAND PERSONAL RADIO TRANSCEIVERS

I disagree with Motorola’s contention that the Commission should prohibit the production of multi-band personal radio equipment. (Motorola’s Petition speaks only of “integrating FRS and MURS frequencies in a single radio unit,” but I could also propose the possibility of including Class D CB channels in the same box. I believe this could be done without violating the rules for any of the three radio services, as long as a careful design effort were undertaken from the earliest stages.) Considering that all three of the services mentioned now fall under the provisions of Part 95, it would not be unreasonable to expect that a single radio could include all three, as long as appropriate provisions were made to accommodate the need for acceptable power levels, a non-removable antenna for the FRS section, and so on. Such a unit would have many advantages in terms of interoperability and convenience for emergency communicators, and in such applications as neighborhood watch programs and support for community-based events. My recommendation is that the production of such equipment not be prohibited, so that manufacturers can pursue it if they so desire. 13

VII. CONCLUSIONS

As an active user of several personal radio services and a qualified commercial radio technician, I recommend that MURS be retained as a personal radio service, and that it continue to be available to the general public, not only to business users. I further recommend that it be structured in such a way as to encourage short-range mobile-to-mobile voice communications. The use of data and imaging modes should be allowed as in the present rules, but it should be limited in such a way as to give precedence to the voice communications that comprise the bulk of communications expected to take place on these frequencies. Public telephone interconnects should be prohibited, and the use of mobile relay (repeater) stations should be reserved for future implementation. Current business band licensees on the newly- allocated MURS channels should be given special consideration in terms of equipment specifications, and should receive incentives that would encourage them to move to non-MURS channels, if they find that excessive interference is occurring. The FCC should replace the present maximum power level of two watts EIRP with a simple two watts transmitter output, and no antenna height limits more restrictive than those currently governing CB radio installations should be imposed. The FCC should allow the development of multi-band personal radio transceivers within the limitations of all current laws for the

MURS, FRS, and Class D CB radio services.

In summary, I believe that the existence of MURS is not likely to “cause irreparable harm to business and industrial users” of the frequencies involved, and that the development of MURS as a personal communications service available to the general public should be encouraged and affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

Scott R. Havens 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have mailed paper copies of the attached Comments to each of the Petitioners listed below. Submitted on this 2nd day of January, 2001.

Scott R. Havens

FOR MOTOROLA, INC.

Richard C. Barth, Ph. D. Vice President and Director, Telecommunications Strategy Motorola, Inc. 1350 I Street NW Washington, DC 20005

FOR THE PRSG: FOR MR. W. C. EASTERDAY:

Corwin D. Moore, Jr. William C. Easterday Administrative Coordinator 111 Greenway Drive Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc. Elyria, OH 44035 P. O. Box 2851 Ann Arbor, MI 48106