On November 12, 2002, the FCC implemented changes in the rules governing the Multi Use Radio Service (MURS). These changes were the FCC's response to three Petitions for Reconsideration that parties (including PRSG) had filed earlier.
Click here for a discussion of these rules (which are currently in effect), and a PRSG-annotated copy of the FCC Report and Order that implemented these changes.
When PRSG reviewed the new rules, we identified about a dozen topics that needed further consideration or clarification. Only three, in our opinion. would need actual changes in the FCC Rules. (We felt that we could obtain a clarification of the other topics informally.)
PRSG then filed a second Petition for Reconsideration requesting that the FCC formally reconsider these three specific aspects of those recently implemented changes.
In mid June 2003, the FCC acknowledged receipt of our Petition, and (by announcement in the Federal Register), set a comment deadline of July 10, 2003. By that deadline, four parties filed comments (oppositions).
On July 21,2003, PRSG replied to those comments, as shown below.
As the FCC was accepting public comments, there were some intense debates in various Internet "chat rooms" and in Yahoo Groups discussions about the merits of the second PRSG Petition. It was clear to us that many people did not understand the nature of the changes that we had requested. Some of this confusion was because people had not even read the Petition, or because they wanted to believe (or had been told by others) that it requested something other than what it really did.
As we prepared these Reply Comments, we spent extra effort to clarify those portions which seemed to be those most often misunderstood or misrepresented. The final verion is therefore somewhat longer than the typical reply comments of other dockets.
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
)
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- ) WT Docket No. 98-182
47 C.F.R. Part 90 - Private Land Mobile ) RM-9222
Radio Services )
REPLY TO OPPOSITIONS TO A
PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Filed by: Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc.
PO Box 2851
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
(734) 662-4533
E-mail: prsg@provide.net
Date: July 21, 2003
====================================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph No.
I. Background of the Commenter. 1
II. Background of the Docket. 4
III. There Have Been Changes in MURS Since the Filing
of Our Petition. 6
A. Some Believe MURS Should Become a "Hobby Service." 6
B. Some Misunderstand or Refuse to Accept the Need 11
for the "Type Certification" Process.
IV. Many MURS Operators Fail to Understand or to Accept Their
Operating Obligations under the Current Rules, or Under
the Changes Requested in the PRSG Petition. 14
A. There are Multiple and Conflicting Definitions of
Phrases Describing the Frequency Monitoring Process. 16
1. The "Initiation" Phase. 17
2. The "Exchange" Phase. 20
3. The "Closure" Phase. 22
B. Do These Monitoring Obligations Derive from a "Moral"
or a "Legal" Imperative? 23
V. The Petition Requests a More Specific Pre-Transmission
Monitoring Requirement. 37
A. The Requested Pre-Transmission-Monitoring Protocol
Would Require Only a Single Waiting Period. 46
B. Some Existing Radio Models Discourage Compliance
with the Requirement for Uncoded-Squelch Monitoring. 50
C. Some Manufacturers Have Given Names to Coded-Squelch
Functions that are Confusing or Misleading. 53
D. The Pre-Transmission-Monitoring Requirement Also
Impacts Call Recipients. 57
VI. The Petition Requests Requirement of Uncoded Squelch
Throughout the Exchange of Communications. 61
A. Should There be a "Special Exemption" for Emergencies? 66
B. Meeting the On-Going Requirement to Monitor with
Uncoded Squelch Should Not Demand Any Extraordinary
or Continuing Operator Action. 69
VII. The Re-enablement of Receiver Muting Could Be Automated. 70
VIII. The Comments Reveal No Particular Insight as to How the
FCC Should Clarify Interconnection with the Public
Switched Network. 72
A. Teaze's Own Plans for MURS Network Interconnection
Deserve Further Examination. 76
IX. How to Define Reasonable Obligations for Those Whose Former
Part 90 Licenses Authorized Now-Prohibited Operations. 84
X. In Summary. 88
XI. Service List. 91
===============================================================
I. BACKGROUND OF THE COMMENTER.
1. The Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc. (PRSG) is an all-volunteer,
not-for-profit Michigan corporation established in 1980 by licensees in the
General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS, FCC Part 95-A) to provide services to
and to serve as an advocate for users of the FCC's personal radio services.
2. The PRSG has published more than 300 different guides to GMRS
licensing, technology and operating practices in the various personal radio
services. PRSG's flagship publication, the GMRS NATIONAL REPEATER GUIDE,
lists the more than 3,500 GMRS repeaters, their sponsors, technical
characteristics and detailed coverage information. The GUIDE has become
the essential reference to this cooperative, nonprofit communications
network for licensed private individuals. PRSG also works closely with
major land mobile equipment manufacturers to disseminate instructional
materials for radio purchasers.
3. PRSG brought issues in this PETITION which had arisen since the first
Report and Order in this Docket, issues for which there had been no prior
opportunity for public comment. In this Reply ("REPLY") we identify some
additional issues for which there has been no previous opportunity for the
public to submit comments.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE DOCKET.
4. In our PETITION, we requested that the FCC consider three general
areas because issues had arisen since the most recent opportunity for public
comment. These areas included:
a) imprecise and antiquated language concerning network
interconnection;
b) new equipment standards that would improve compliance with the
current operating rules; and,
c) requirements for operations under otherwise impermissible
standards.
5. Four parties filed comments ("OPPOSITIONS"), although two did not
provide the proper service. We had expected more parties to file, and
we reserve the right to submit Supplemental Reply Comments if there are
additional filings.
III. THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN MURS SINCE THE FILING OF OUR PETITION.
III.A. SOME BELIEVE MURS IS OR SHOULD BECOME A "HOBBY SERVICE."
6. A raging debate has enveloped some YAHOO discussion lists and other
Internet-based "chat rooms" about whether or not MURS is a "hobby service."
The hobbyists argue that since there is no specific FCC rule prohibiting
the use of MURS for "hobby communications," that it must therefore be
permissible.
7. PRSG has long opposed the use of the Part 95 "Personal Radio Services"
(exclusive of the Remote Control Radio Service, but only as designated for
the remote control of toys and other devices) for "hobby communications."
PRSG believes that the FCC's original intent in reallocating the five
frequencies now in MURS to this new personal radio service was to relieve
the licensing obligation for users of these frequencies, and to acknowledge
that these transceivers had been widely marketed to the general public for
use to organize and coordinate their daily personal activities. We have
found NO indication that the FCC intended these frequencies to be used for
"hobby communications."
8. For purpose of this REPLY, we adopt a definition of "hobby
communications" to mean "communications as a recreational activity in and
of itself, and not otherwise used to directly organize and coordinate one's
non-radio-based daily activities." The significance of this definition is
that the typical "hobby communications" can often involve lengthy exchanges
of a largely frivolous nature or intended to entertain or amuse. The use of
MURS for "hobby communications," in PRSG's opinion, would be counter to the
FCC's intent that MURS communications be both short in distance and short in
time, in order to maximize sharing of these only five frequencies intended
for use by "small footprint" systems.
9. There are some who argue that MURS should be an "entry level" to the
Amateur Radio Service (ham radio). They advocate the use of MURS as some
kind of "stepping stone" to the licensed and more versatile Amateur Radio
Service.
10. PRSG objects to this misuse of MURS. We caution the FCC that it may
need to consider, at some point in the future, imposing additional
requirements (such as transmitter time-out limits) to discourage the use
of MURS for hobby communications.
III.B. SOME MISUNDERSTAND OR REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE NEED FOR THE
"TYPE CERTIFICATION" PROCESS.
11. As MURS becomes promoted for "hobby communications," there is a
growing tolerance (bordering on advocacy) of the use of modifying
(frequently called "opening up," referring to expand the capable transmit
frequencies) of radios suitable ONLY for use in the Amateur Radio Service.
One commenter to this PETITION has repeatedly expressed a tolerance of
the illegal use of modified ham radios for MURS [FN1]
FN1: Stewart Teaze, at paragraph 1, acknowledges that he is the moderator
of the Yahoo Group "MURS-OPEN." This group has an open membership policy
and is not moderated as to who can post messages, or who can join and read
messages. Following in our REPLY we quote freely from the message archives
of this Yahoo Group. In message #4430 of June 3, 2003, Teaze said,
"I've mentioned before that I don't have any grief with a ham
modifying his own handheld (VX-7, etc.) for use on MURS ..."
12. Teaze has also exhibited a serious misunderstanding of the purpose of
the type-certification process required of all transceivers permitted to be
used in MURS [FN2].
FN2: In Yahoo Group MNURS-OPEN, message 5112 of July 15, 2003, Teaze said:
"Some will complain that you should use a "type accepted" radio (not a
converted ham radio, for instance). But, that is mainly a
requirement for the manufacturers, so that consumers can know they
are buying the proper equipment... it turns out there are Part 90
type accepted radios that don't meet the MURS requirements, for one
reason or another, so "type acceptance" is not a true gauge for
meeting the spirit of the rules"
13. What Teaze fails to recognize is that although power output, signal
deviation and frequency stability are some of the aspects of the type
certification process (and, presumably MIGHT be modified and verified to
fall within the limits set for MURS), other conditions (such as spectral
purity and harmonic suppression, limitation of the modulation sidebands,
etc.) cannot be verified without sophisticated testing equipment not
available to the typical hobbyist. Moreover, there are further restrictions
(such as the programmability for operation on non-MURS frequencies) that
are expressly forbidden on transceivers certificated both under the initial
MURS Rules (effective November 2000) and the subsequently amended ones
(effective November 2002).
IV. MANY MURS OPERATORS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND OR TO ACCEPT THEIR OPERATING
OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, OR UNDER THE CHANGES REQUESTED
IN THE PRSG PETITION.
14. Both in the online discussions and in the oppositions filed to the
PETITION, many people demonstrate a failure to understand their obligations
for proper MURS operations both under the existing FCC rules, and under the
changes requested by the PETITION. We will demonstrate this with regard to
specific comments below, but this misunderstanding permeates the general
user community as well.
15. This suggests that beyond the contents and requests of the PETITION,
the FCC may need to consider further changes in rule language, and perhaps
the issuance of a series of clarifications and interpretations.
IV.A. THERE ARE MULTIPLE AND CONFLICTING DEFINITIONS OF PHRASES
DESCRIBING THE FREQUENCY MONITORING PROCESS.
16. For purposes of this discussion, and for evaluating the OPPOSITIONS
filed to our PETITION, we shall describe the typical communications
exchange in THREE PHASES. We have given names to these phases reluctantly,
since a simplified reference can carry or omit additional implications
and/or consequences not intended.
IV.A.1. THE "INITIATION" PHASE.
17. In ALL radio services in which multiple users share the same channel,
and in which the user determines when to begin the communication exchange,
the user is supposed to monitor the frequency FIRST to determine if it is
already in use, and to refrain from transmitting if that transmission
would disrupt pre-existent communications on the same channel. There are
certain radio services and operating protocols where this voluntary
pre-transmission monitoring is not necessary (such as in a trunked system
with exclusively assigned channels). There are other (if rare) circumstances
in which the transmitter is inhibited from transmitting if its associated
receiver detects another signal already on the same channel. This is a
"busy-channel lock out ["BCLO"].
18. There are TWO kinds of this Initiation Phase. The first applies to
the party who initiates the communications exchange. The second applies to
the one or more parties who respond to the first caller.
19. A commonly recognized and acknowledged phrase is, "No two people
ever see the same rainbow." In a communications system with very-low-power
transmitters and quite limited range, no two radios may hear the same
signals. The FCC requirement at 95.1307(d) appropriately does not exclude
ANY party to the communications, neither the initiator nor any subsequent
recipients, from the pre-transmission monitoring requirement. BOTH the
initiator and the recipient must monitor the frequency before transmitting.
The recipient cannot assume that the originator's performance of the
obligatory pre-transmission monitoring relieves the recipient of the same
obligation.
IV.A.2. THE "EXCHANGE" PHASE.
20. In this Phase, the various parties to the exchange alternately
transmit to and receive from the other parties to the exchange.
21. Any party to a communications exchange must immediately cease
transmitting if that transmission would interfere with another transmission
on the same channel pertaining to the immediate safety of life or protection
of property. However, the only way to know if there is such an emergency
transmission is to monitor the channel without any form of muted or coded
squelch.[FN3] The monitoring need not be done at the "zero bias" noise level
(in which the associated receiver's speaker would emit "white noise"), but
SHOULD be done with a squelch setting at a level where the operator would
be able to hear any co-channel emergency transmission with which his/her
subsequent transmission might interfere.
FN3: The phrase "coded or muted squelch" shall refer in this REPLY to any
receiver-muting protocol in which the receiver audio is silenced or
substantially reduced in the absence of a code. Such a code might include
a continuous code ("continuous tone-controlled squelch system," or "CTCSS,"
or "digital coded squelch," or "DCS") or a "tone burst" signal typically at
the beginning of the transmission.
IV.A.2. THE "CLOSURE" PHASE.
22. After the conclusion of the communications exchange, the parties
involved can return their radios to a muted-squelch condition. The
significance of this Phase to this REPLY is how the radio operator
initiates this phase, the penalty against doing so prematurely, and
whether or not this Phase can or should begin automatically.
IV.B. DO THESE MONITORING OBLIGATIONS DERIVE FROM A "MORAL" OR A
"LEGAL" IMPERATIVE?
23. In the numerous chat-room discussions of the PETITION, some
participants have resisted the idea of requiring these monitoring efforts
during the first and second Phases, and have loudly proclaimed that such
monitoring is unenforceable, as would be any requirement "to legislate
morality." What they ignore is that it IS possible to legislate behaviors.
What for some may seem to be "a morality issue" is possible to address
as a regulatory one as well. Behaviors are quite commonly legislated and
regulated, and sanctions can be imposed against those who ignore or
violate those requirements and restrictions.
24. But is it necessary to regulate such behaviors? We argue that in the
face of widespread resistance to complying voluntarily with these reasonable
pre- and during-transmission monitoring requirements, that YES it has become
necessary to "put some teeth" into these requirements. The only feasible way
to accomplish this is to incorporate such mandates into the basic design of
the hardware and software.
25. Opponents to this concept have vigorously argued the following:
1: The changes would mandate a behavior required in no other personal
radio service.
2: Users who have developed poor monitoring habits in other radio
services would have to be "retrained."
3: The new monitoring requirements would impose "an inconvenience"
on radio operators.
4: Existing radios would be difficult to retrofit with the new
hardware or software.
5: User resistance to the changes would encourage efforts to defeat
these features integral to the operation of the radio.
6: The changes would add unnecessary cost (both for design and for
implementation) to the radios.
7: If these changes were really a benefit to the user, manufacturers
would have already built them into existing radios.
8: These changes would be "over-regulation" at a time when federal
agencies should be DEregulating.
IV.B.1: THE CHANGES WOULD MANDATE A BEHAVIOR REQUIRED IN NO OTHER
PERSONAL RADIO SERVICE.
25. We cite the growing body of experience in the Family Radio Service
(FRS) at locations where there is a high density of use. At nearly any
crowded venue and major sporting, recreational or entertainment event, FRS
users can be heard increasingly "walking all over each other," repeatedly
transmitting "calling tones" and shouting into their radios, OBLIVIOUS to
the fact that the operating channel is in use by others, often by multiple
others.
26. This is NOT a future that we would wish for MURS, but there is
growing experience that this is precisely what awaits the relatively new
personal radio experience.
27. And this is NOT, as alleged by Teaze (Teaze Opposition at paragraph
1) an unnecessarily "gloom and doom" prediction. It is a real-life
experience both that exists frequently today in FRS and (despite the
much lighter use of MURS, and the availability of only a single MURS model
radio with "ring tones") that is beginning to occur in MURS.
IV.B.2: USERS WHO HAVE DEVELOPED POOR MONITORING HABITS IN OTHER
RADIO SERVICES WOULD HAVE TO BE "RETRAINED."
28. Precisely. This "retraining" is necessary to break bad habits so
that they don't spread to MURS operations.
IV.B.3: THE NEW MONITORING REQUIREMENTS WOULD IMPOSE
"AN INCONVENIENCE" ON RADIO OPERATIONS.
29. Of course it would, but life is full of "inconveniences." It is
"inconvenient":
- to come to a stop at a STOP sign
- to refrain from passing in a "no passing zone"
- to refrain from smoking on an airlines flight
- to identify by FCC callsign in radio services that require this
etc., etc.
But these are "inconveniences" that society has determined to be desirable
and to be necessary to require by regulation.
30. Bottom line: An inconvenience is necessary to cooperate with other
users of a shared resource such as a common radio channel.
IV.B.4: EXISTING RADIOS WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO RETROFIT WITH THE
NEW HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE.
31. This would be difficult, and the PETITION did not propose this.
Fortunately, there is a relative scarcity of existing equipment suitable
for use in MURS. Any considerable growth in MURS use would require the
manufacturing of more and new models which, if certificated first after
the implementation of these requirements, would all have such features.
IV.B.5: USER RESISTANCE TO THE CHANGES WOULD ENCOURAGE EFFORTS TO
DEFEAT THESE FEATURES INTEGRAL TO THE OPERATION OF THE
RADIO.
32. Although possible, this is less likely given the sophistication of
contemporary radio design, which is heavily based on computer control by
an integral central processing unit (CPU). FCC regulation could prohibit
any design whose features (capabilities and limitations) could be modified
merely by "clipping a jumper," "entering a 'secret code'," or some other
devious work-around.
IV.B.6: THE CHANGES WOULD ADD UNNECESSARY COST (BOTH FOR DESIGN
AND FOR IMPLEMENTATION) TO THE RADIOS.
33. No representative of any radio manufacturer has made such a claim.
The experience of radios models that already incorporate features
tied to timing requirements and constraints shows that such behavioral
controls can be made integral to the software. For example, the Garmin
model 120 combination FRS/GPS transceiver incorporates minimum and
maximum timing provisions without adding noticeably to the cost of
design and manufacture. The timing requirements are required by the FCC
Rule implemented by the Report and Order in WTB Docket 01-339, effective
April 2, 2003.
IV.B.7: IF THESE CHANGES WERE REALLY A BENEFIT TO THE USER,
MANUFACTURERS WOULD HAVE ALREADY BUILT THEM INTO EXISTING
RADIOS.
34. This hasn't happened so far WITHOUT federal regulation. No radio
manufacturer would want to be "first" with a radio model that would impose
the "inconvenience" of pre- and during-transmission monitoring.
Implementation of the timing and monitoring requirements will simply not
come voluntarily unless required "across the board" for all newly MURS-
certificated radios.
IV.B.8: THESE CHANGES WOULD BE "OVER REGULATION" AT A TIME WHEN
FEDERAL AGENCIES SHOULD BE DEREGULATING.
35. To the contrary, the FCC has recently begun to permit data
communications in the FRS, but ONLY by radios that must incorporate such
time-limiting provisions (maximum transmit time, minimum time between
transmissions). Clearly there is now a strong precedent for requiring
behavior-mandating controls in a personal radio service offering new
or expanded capabilities, something common both the data transmissions
in FRS, and to ALL transmissions in MURS.
36. PRSG believes that it is no longer acceptable for the FCC to
avoid such behavior-mandating requirements. The unique opportunity
for MURS includes the fact that there is a limited amount of existing
(pre-monitoring-requirement) supply of radios on the market. The changes
which PRSG requests now can reasonably be expected to have big payoffs
later as this relatively new personal radio service expands in popularity.
V. THE PETITION REQUESTS A MORE SPECIFIC PRE-TRANSMISSION MONITORING
REQUIREMENT.
37. In the "Memorandum Opinion and Order/Second Report and Order"
["MO&O/SR&O"] to this Docket (the action which this PETITION addressed),
the FCC changed the language of 95.1307(d) to read as follows:
"MURS users shall take reasonable precautions to avoid causing
harmful interference. This includes monitoring the transmitting
frequency for communications in progress and such other measures
as may be necessary to minimize the potential for causing
interference."
38. PRSG believes that this language does not go far enough. The new
rule fails to establish any minimum pre-transmission monitoring time.
Is 0.1 second sufficient? 0.5 second? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10.375
seconds?
39. The length of time to determine if there is pre-transmission
co-channel activity depends on several factors. On a channel used
primarily or exclusively for repeater transmissions, the monitoring
station might easily be able to hear some repeater (his/her own, or
another) that was already in use. A pre-transmission monitoring might
require only a second or less.
40. But this is NOT the situation in MURS, where the FCC Rules now
prohibit repeaters of the conventional variety (separate input and
output frequencies, nearly simultaneous retransmission, often very
height-advantageous antenna siting, etc.). In a low-power, limited-
range, it can take longer to determine if the frequency is available
for use. However, there are also limits on user patience to wait, and
a mandated pre-transmission requirement must balance between these two
interests.
41. In the PETITION, PRSG refrained from requesting a specific
minimum-unmuted-squelch monitoring time. Commenters would have focused
on some alleged impracticality of a specific limit, and would have been
less likely to address the general requirement of a mandated minimum.
42. Given the general MURS-related consideration discussed in paragraph
49 above, PRSG believes that the minimum monitoring time should be not
less than 2 seconds, and probably should be not more than 5 seconds. We
believe that the FCC should propose a more specific time limit (or maybe,
range of limits) as part of a further public inquiry, after having
established a commitment to proceed to establish some level of mandate.
43. We must also note that those who oppose the imposition of ANY
hardware- or software-mandated minimum pre-transmission monitoring time
must be obliged to explain why SOME minimum should NOT be mandated by FCC
rule. Comments so far on the PETITION have failed to provide any viable
explanation as to why there should be no mandated minimum.
44. Clearly, as discussed previously, it cannot be a matter of cost.
Garmin's model 120 (combining a GPS receiver with a FRS transceiver)
includes precisely such an integral timing mandate (maximum data
transmission on time, minimum time between data transmissions time).
45. Nor have (nor could) parties opposed to this concept logically argue
that it would increase the complexity of operations. (PRSG has heard no
outcry of Garmin model 120 users, such as in the various Yahoo groups and
other Internet-based chat rooms, complaining of overly complex operating
requirements. Perhaps "an inconvenience," but as we discussed previously,
life is full of those.) Besides, the Garmin model 120 timing constraints
actually SIMPLIFY compliance with the reasonable FCC timing requirements,
allowing the user not to have to use a stopwatch to determine compliance.
V.A. THE REQUESTED PRE-TRANSMISSION-MONITORING PROTOCOL WOULD REQUIRE
ONLY A SINGLE WAITING PERIOD.
46. The required unmuted-squelch protocol need be required only once
after the associated receiver squelch is unmuted. It would not need to
be imposed again until/unless the radio operator again switches the
associated receiver back to a coded-squelch-only format.
47. This is NOT, as some have mischaracterized it, a "busy-channel
lock out" (BCLO) protocol for operations where there is an operator
present at the radio. The protocol would enable the transmitter to
activate after the minimum waiting time, whether or not the receiver
perceived any co-channel activity. The "Phase 1" operation for the
station initiating the communications would begin when the operator
removed the receiver from a coded-squelch condition, and would end when
the radio first transmitted.
48. However, if the transmitter is remotely activated by any means other
than by a station operator listening first for co-channel communications,
then a requirement for a BCLO IS justified. Those who would employ
transmitters in a system where there is no opportunity for pre-transmission
monitoring by a station operator should reasonably be required to exercise
additional precaution in the installation and operation of such a station.
A BCLO requiring some minimum period of time is a reasonable obligation to
expect, to assure compliance with the concept of pre-transmission
monitoring, and is, in reality, nothing more than is required in the
CURRENT rules.
49. This Phase 1 pre-transmission-monitoring requirement would not again
be imposed unless/until the radio receiver returned to coded-squelch
status (in Phase 3). In the case of a remotely actuated transmitter,
however, the pre-transmission monitor function (as a BCLO) should
reasonable be required before EACH transmission.
V.B. SOME EXISTING RADIO MODELS DISCOURAGE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENT FOR UNCODED-SQUELCH MONITORING.
50. Some manufacturers have designed radio models so that the radio
transmitter's encoding of a CTCSS, DCS, tone-burst, or some other
"selective addressing" protocol, used to activate a remote receiver,
is disabled whenever the associated receiver's coded-squelch is also
disabled. The creates an undesirable and distinctly "user-unfriendly"
operating requirement, wherein the operator must continually enable
(before transmit) and disable (before receive) the encoding/decoding
function if trying to call another party whose receiver is in a
coded-squelch condition.
51. In current radio models, and in any future radio models that also
require such repetitive user actions, the practical effect of such an
undesirable and unfriendly feature is to discourage monitoring with an
uncoded squelch. If the FCC were to adopt the pre-transmission-monitoring
protocol that the PETITION requests, future radio models that continue
such an unfriendly user interface would have to repeat the Phase 1
transmitter-disabled waiting period.
52. Some parties may have assumed that future radios WOULD continue
to employ such an unfriendly user interface. We would hope not, and
we would encourage the FCC to consider requiring that disabling the
coded-squelch monitoring function should not also disable the transmitter
encoding of such a selective-addressing code.
V.C. SOME MANUFACTURERS HAVE GIVEN NAMES TO CODED-SQUELCH FUNCTIONS
THAT ARE CONFUSING OR MISLEADING.
53. The names falsely suggest that the use of various coded-squelch
protocols creates a "private line," a "private channel," or assures a
"quiet channel" for the user's own, non-interfering use. More recently,
the manufacturers of FRS radios have described coded squelch as being
an "interference ELIMINATOR," whereas the end result has instead been
that its use is an "interference IGNORER," since without uncoded squelch
monitoring, users are completely unaware of co-channel traffic and the
interference which they suffer from or cause to other co-channel users.
54. Some have also described the use of CTCSS and DCS coding as
providing "subchannels," implying (incorrectly) that the combination of
RF channel and CTCSS/DCS code creates some unique subchannel and
suggesting that this increases the capacity of the channel (and/or
reduces the need for pre- and during-transmission monitoring).
55. This mislabeling is all "marketing hype" in an effort to conceal
the inconvenience required to monitor and to responsibly share the same
channel among multiple users. But the hype has the effect of encouraging
users to ignore good operating practices.
56. This is the communications industry's "dirty little secret." It is
only further reason why FCC action is necessary in this fledgling MURS
personal radio service, to develop and then to impose the hardware and
software requirements the will ENCOURAGE rather than DISCOURAGE compliance
both with operating requirements and with well-established "good operating
practice." The manufacturers haven't taken, and can't be expected to take,
the first step. The FCC must.
V.D. THE PRE-TRANSMISSION-MONITORING REQUIREMENT ALSO IMPACTS CALL
RECIPIENTS.
57. The discussion above concerns the requirements that the PETITION
requests be imposed on those who INITIATE a call. There are comparable
requirements for those who first RECEIVE a call from another party. The
same minimum pre-transmission-monitoring time period should be required,
of the recipient, but it could begin to accumulate at the conclusion of
the first receipt of the initiator's coded-squelch transmission. Further
recipient operator action would not be necessary, since receipt of the
call could automatically start that second station's uncoded-squelch
monitoring.
58. Without further refinement in the protocol, this could permit some
abuse or circumvention. For instance, the call originator could transmit
merely momentarily to trigger the uncoded-squelch countdown in radios of
the intended recipients, then pause and then transmit a second time
while the recipients' radios were still counting down to the minimum
monitoring time before transmit enablement.
59. To minimize this abuse, PRSG recommends that the countdown timer of
recipients' radios accumulate "time credit" toward the uncoded-monitoring
time minimum ONLY in the absence of an incoming signal encoded with the
recipients' muted-squelch code.
60. Although the concept just described would appear to be complex, it
would all be embedded in the software controlling the radios' CPU. The
apparent complexity would be transparent to the end user, who need know
only that he/she must monitor with uncoded squelch for a minimum time
before the associated transmitter is enabled
VI. THE PETITION REQUESTS REQUIREMENT OF UNCODED SQUELCH THROUGHOUT THE
EXCHANGE OF COMMUNICATIONS.
61. Only by operating in an uncoded-squelch mode would a station
operator be able to hear that another station on the same channel needed
to communicate about an emergency threatening the safety of life or the
protection of property. This is "a no-brainer," yet (based on comments
in various chat rooms and other Internet-based discussion groups) this
seems to be a point of some controversy.
62. Two-way radio users, but especially those whose main radio
operating experience has been in FRS, have been conditioned to accept an
unrealistically and inappropriately broad definition of "interference."
INTERFERENCE is when one signal DISRUPTS or prevents the receipt of some
other signal. Interference is NOT the mere perception of some other
signal. Merely hearing a signal which a user does not need or wish to
hear does not constitute interference, unless there is also that factor
of disruption.
63. The (especially FRS) user public has come to confuse the concept
of "interference" with those of "annoyance," inconvenience," and
"distraction." That user public has also become conditioned to ignore the
reasonable pre- and during-transmission-monitoring obligations inherent in
"sharing."
64. Persons who refuse to monitor with uncoded squelch, or who even
refuse to leave slight breaks of radio silence in between the normal
exchange, are in essence saying, "If there's an emergency, I don't want
to know about it." This reflects a selfishness, laziness, and deliberate
disregard for the rights of others using the same shared radio spectrum
resource.
65. Since these abusive behaviors DO exist, and since some MURS station
operators DO exhibit them, the general MURS user community (for which the
PRSG attempts to serve as an advocate) can reasonably request that the
FCC consider taking steps not just to identify and require by rule
compliance with good operating practices, but also impose such performance-
related requirements on equipment designed and marketed to the MURS user
community.
VI.A. SHOULD THERE BE A "SPECIAL EXEMPTION" FOR EMERGENCIES?
66. In the ongoing Internet discussions, there was some debate about
whether or not an exemption from pre- and during-transmission-monitoring
requirements should be available for emergencies threatening the safety of
life or the protection of property.
67. Three of the parties that contributed to this REPLY have a cumulative
total of more than seven decades of experience (including public-safety
fleet dispatch) in emergency communications safety. For any "emergency"
that one party may perceive, there is always the possibility that another
"emergency" could and should be afforded a higher priority. The presence
or absence of some "emergency" is not a dichotomous absolute.
68. The only way to accommodate varying degrees of urgency is for those
communicating about them to be aware of other communications activities
on the same channel. PRSG recommends against any suggestion that those
alleging to need to communicate about some emergency should be exempted
from the requirements for pre- and during-transmission monitoring.
VI.B. MEETING THE ON-GOING REQUIREMENT TO MONITOR WITH UNCODED
SQUELCH SHOULD NOT DEMAND ANY EXTRAORDINARY OR CONTINNUING
OPERATOR ACTION.
69. Some radio models provide the operator with uncoded-squelch
monitoring ONLY through some continuing operator action, such as holding
down a button or first entering a multiple-digit sequence. This kind of
requirement DIScourages operator compliance with pre- and during-
transmission monitoring. The PETITION (at paragraph 14) requested that
the FCC require that uncoded-squelch monitoring not require some complex
or continuing operator action, but rather should be able to be set to
for open monitoring with a single action. Permitting the use of a
momentary "push-to-listen" button is not sufficient or appropriate,
since it requires continuing operator action and thus DISCOURAGES
compliance with pre- and during-channel encoded squelch monitoring.
VII. THE RE-ENABLEMENT OF RECEIVER MUTING COULD BE AUTOMATED.
70. After conclusion of the exchange of communications, the operator
should be able to re-enable receiver muting. This process could also
be automated, for instance to occur after some time period of transmitter
activity.
71. However, with re-enablement of receiver muting, the transceiver
should not be allowed enabled to transmit (in our described Phase 2)
unless and until the station operator again goes through the required
pre-transmission uncoded-squelch monitoring of Phase 1. If the transceiver
incorporates a provision for automatic re-enablement of receiver muting,
the station operator needs a convenient and simple (single-stroke)
option to prevent this. This will minimize operator frustration with
having to return to the Phase 1 uncoded-squelch monitoring if the
operators anticipates needing to shortly return to a Phase 2-enabled
exchange of communications.
VIII. THE COMMENTS REVEAL NO PARTICULAR INSIGHT AS TO HOW THE FCC
SHOULD CLARIFY INTERCONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC SWITCHED NETWORK.
72. In the PETITION (at paragraphs 5 through 7), we raised the issue that
today's complex network of networks defied any easy analysis of what is and
what is not a portion of, or connected to, the Public Switched Network
("PSN"). In the eight months since filing the PETITION, the situation has
become even more complex. The newer flavors of network design and interface,
including Session Initiated protocols ("SIP"), assure that the changes in
network sophistication and user/usage transparency will continue at a most
rapid pace.
73. Given this rapidly increasing proliferation and complexity, we tried
to synthesize this out to a more fundamental question. At paragraph 9:
"What this argues is that the Commission needs to modify
its current approach of granting or denying network
access in MURS based solely on the first-phase network
topology. Instead, the Commission needs to address this
issue from a more basic position: Under what conditions
(and with what limitations) should the Commission permit
a MURS station to transmit messages or data coming other
than from a specific person locally controlling a specific
MURS transmitter, what we could characterize as a
'one person/one push-to-transmit button' station.
74. The Petition (at paragraph 10) also observed:
"that the Commission's rules pertaining to the operation of
the frequencies now allocated to MURS essentially limited
network (including private network) interconnection
previously by establishing the maximum distance between
the control point and the center of the radiating antenna."
Thus, no changes under consideration should impact any grandfathered
(previously Part 90-licensed) user of MURS except those to whom the FCC
had granted specific exemptions or waivers, and which the Commission
intends to continue to permit
75. None of the comments directly addressed these complexities, except
Teaze (at paragraph 4) who claims that the current rules are sufficiently
clear.
VIII.A. TEAZE'S OWNS PLANS FOR MURS NETWORK INTERCONNECTION NEED
FURTHER EXAMINATION.
76. Stewart Teaze, Amateur Radio licensee (N0MHS) and self-described RF
communications systems engineer, is the principal author and proponent of
a new data transfer protocol (in development) for use by MURS stations. He
seems to believe that there is currently a loophole in the MURS rules that
would permit implementation of this new protocol using a non-dial-up
Internet connection to achieve potentially nationwide delivery.
77. This new protocol is best described in his own words. In message
#152 of the MURS-OPEN Yahoo Groups forum, Teaze described this protocol on
June 13, 2001, as follows:
"1) By moving the passing of all routing information from the RF
level to the Internet level, you can VASTLY reduce the overhead of
passing routing information over the precious RF bandwidth. The
routing information can be removed from the protocol, and no system-
level routing traffic need take place on RF - ever. More
sophisticated "server-level" software needs to be written to acheive
this coordination over the Internet - but it is entirely acheivable.
Broadcasts from the servers can even be somewhat "time-coordinated"
for the local channels, further reducing the chances for "collisions"
and hidden terminal problems at the higher RF coverage levels.
"2) By moving towards a hybrid "strategic broadcast/routing" scenario,
from the current "RF routing, and everyone broadcasts" scenario of
APRS or the "RF routing" scenario of the old NET/ROM-based packet
networks, you can combine the APRS and e-mail(and other character-
based apps) applications on one channel, to help acheive critical
mass of Internet gateway stations. Broadcast packets would contain
combined information(all sorted out by the server-level software),
further reducing protocol overhead(the overhead of sending these
bursty messages out on separate packets, all having separate TxDelays
is a BANDWIDTH KILLER!).
"3) Move towards a more "cellular-based" RF network structure. By
using many Internet backbone gateways, set up at strategically spaced
lower-level sites, running lower power and directional antennas
(rather than a few high-level nodes, that don't/can't have Internet
access)the hidden terminal problem is vastly reduced."
78. This was written before announcement (May 2002) or implementation
(November 2002) of the current MURS Rules, which now prohibit
interconnection between any MURS station and the PSN. However, that change
does not seem to have dissuaded Mr. Teaze from intending on using an
Internet backbone for the interconnection of these MURS stations. In
message #4090 of the MURS-OPEN Yahoo Groups forum, Teaze said on April
25, 2003:
"M.1 (and the MURSlink application) is going to integrate the more
useful features of APRS with an Intenet-backboned e-mail/IM system,
for use on MURS."
79. Even more recently, and in a message that reveals that he doesn't
understand the PETITION, Teaze said (message #5072 of the MURS-OPEM Yahoo
Groups forum, on July 10, 2003):
"This brings up a good point, as IRLP type systems were directly
addressed in the PRSG petition.
"PRSG wants the FCC to make another regulation to specifically
disallow this type of system on MURS, by specifically stating that a
control point operator must be within 50ft on the antenna (or
something like that). In my comment to the FCC, regarding this
issue, I stated that changing the rules was unnecessary, as the
current rules imply that this activity does not meet the intention of
the service (a short range voice and data communications service).
"While I wouldn't mind seeing a limited amount of IRLP usage allowed
on MURS; I have to admit that there is a potential for abuse with
such a system, as it seems to me that it would be next to impossible
to deal with remote abusers of such a system. John Guetherman also
brought up a good point, in that a high-level node could end up
dominating a couple of MURS freqs over a widespread area.
"Rather than changing the rules, I'm hoping the FCC simply makes some
kind of clarification statement recarding this issue - and that they
don't go too far, and create an overly restrictive situation."
PRSG did not recommend any reinstitution of a maximum distance between the
control point and the transmitting antenna, although that IS one option
which the FCC might consider. More importantly, Teaze apparently doesn't
want his perceived wide-area-network loophole to be taken away.
80. Teaze suggests even further bending of the current rules. At message
#4460 of the MURS-OPEN Yahoo Groups forum, on June 9, 2003, Teaze said:
"... while it is true that, under the MURS rules, you can't implement
Amateur-like "store-and-forward" type systems (which is usually a
good thing, by the way), if you use a hub or access point, and use
centralized application to "massage the input data" so that packets
aren't simply being stored and fowarded, you can do some things that
you might initially overlook as being possible under the MURS rules.
I'd also like to point out that there have been a number of
discussions related to the M.1 MURS-oriented open protocol on the
murslink newsgroup:
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/murslink/?yguid=44552993"
81. Now comes Mr. Teaze in his Opposition (at paragraph 4) making the
following statement:
"The MURS rules already contain wording that prohibits the use of
the type of voice-relay system described in the PRSG petition.
MURS is a service designed for “short range communication”. Any
individual attempting to implement an Internet-based relay portal
allowing a remote user to key a radio from a location that was
hundreds, or even thousands, of miles away, would obviously be
violating the express purpose of the MURS service. Since the
existing MURS rules already address the issue at hand, there is
no need to modify the existing MURS regulations (continuos and
flippant modifications of MURS rules can have wide-ranging and
unintended consequences, as was described in more detail in my
opening statement)."
82. We find it difficult to reconcile the contradictions between Teaze's
statements in the MURS-OPEN Yahoo Group, and those which he submitted in
his Opposition to the PRSG PETITION. Mr. Teaze may want to think that he
has carefully crafted his words so as not to appear contradictory, but we
find the language of his Opposition to be simply disingenuous.
83. As a minimum, Teaze's comments rather clearly demonstrate why the
FCC needs to consider some new approach to more clearly explain what
should and what should not be permissible for MURS network
interconnectivity.
IX. HOW TO DEFINE REASONABLE OBLIGATIONS FOR THOSE WHOSE FORMER PART 90
LICENSES AUTHORIZED NOW-PROHIBITED OPERATIONS.
84. In paragraphs 15 through 18 of the PETITION, we identified the
problem of how to distinguish those "grandfathered" users whose prior
licenses authorized operations not compliant with current MURS rules.
We would expect these to be few in number, but still potentially
significant to note as the MURS user community might attempt to apply
peer pressure to bring compliance with the current rules.
85. Some people misunderstood what the PETITION requested, but none
provided a workable alternative to what the PETITION had requested.
86. Michael Dickerson (at paragraph 11) speculated that such licensing
information could be misused to conceal or mislead others as to their
true eligibility to operate beyond the parameters authorized for MURS
station. PRSG provided an online database of all GMRS licenses, available
through one of our Bulletin Board Systems to our subscribers, for most
of the early and mid 1990s. Our experience was that there was little
misuse of the licensing data. Furthermore, now that the licensing data
is available online through the FCC's own Web site, we have not heard of
any such misuse.
87. We therefore have to conclude that Dickerson's concerns about the
potential for misuse of the licensing data are largely unfounded.
X. IN SUMMARY.
88. The points that we raised in the PETITION all go to subjects that
will likely have a significant impact on the future of this personal radio
service. None of the OPPOSITIONS raise issues that should detract from
our original requests.
89. On the particular issue of pre-transmission monitoring, we request
that the FCC commit to the implementation of the general concept, and then
initiate a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to invite public comment
what the specific timing parameters should.
90. On the remaining issues, we request that the Commission proceed
directly with rulemaking, including such changes as the Commission finds
necessary to address its intent on permissible or prohibited interconnection
was public and private networks. PRSG believes that no case has been made
to permit interconnection even with private networks, given the intent of
this service to provide brief communications of a highly localized nature.
XI. SERVICE LIST.
91. I hereby certify that on July 22, 2003, I sent a copy of this REPLY
by First Class US Mail to the following parties at the addresses shown:
F.E. Brody
RR 2, Box 568
Thomaston, CT 06787
James Johnston
828 S Wise
Sumter, SC 29150
Stewart Teaze
39501 Cedarwood Dr
Murrieta, CA 92563
92. I also certify that on Jul;y 22, 2003, I sent an electronic copy
of this REPLY to the following party, upon his certification of
willingness to receive this REPLY but that means:
Michael Dickerson at ramj1@earthlink.net
/s/
Corwin D. Moore, Jr., Administrative Coordinator
Personal Radio Steering Group. Inc.
PO Box 2851
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
E-mail: prsg@provide.net