-23-

Jicensees in the higher grades. 26/ after special call signs were made
available to higher class licensees, the number of applicants for higher grade
licenses increased. Casual data suggest operators may value a special call
sign more than increased frequency privileges, but no systematic data or
analyses bearing on this question seem to be available. 27/

In addition to more stringent entry requirements, the Amateur Radio
Service also has very different technical regulations from the Citizens Radio
Services. The amateur service has a very large amount of spectrum compared to
the CRS, even though CRS users outnumber amateurs by about forty to one. The
FCC licenses equipment as well as operators in the CRS to control inter-
ference, but equipment licensing has not been thought necessary in the amateur
service since the operators have a degree of technical competence. In
addition, either mandatory channelization of amateur frequencies or excessive
restrictions on enission types could stifle one of the amateur service's
goals -- technical training and experimentation. Consistently, the Commission
has avoided imposing on anateurs many technical regulations like those so
common in other services. In particular, it has never specified "channels"

nor mandated strict transmitter licensing. 28/

26/ Official call signs are the station identification required by Commission
regulation in all radio services. CB operators generally identify one another
instead by nicknames, or "handles." In the amateur service, however,
identification has remained by call sign. Distinctive calls have long been
regarded as status symbols among anateurs, and recently the Commission
capitalized on the fact by establishing a number of new call sign
combinations, each distinctive to a particular class of license. The result
seems to have been an increase in the amateurs upgrading their licenses.

27/ Cf. Wayne Green, “Never Say Die," 73 Magazine, October 1980, p. 244.
28/

In an effort to prevent use of high-powered amateur equipment by CBers,
however, the Commission now requires type acceptance of certain amateur

transmitting gear. And it has imposed modest out-of-band emission constraints
on amateur transmitters.


-19-

perhaps a “radio frontier," but the regulatory flexibility necessary to
explore it may be lacking. Only recently, for example, has the Commission
authorized ASCII as a radioteletype code in the amateur bands; and the speeds
even now allowed are considered too slow by some operators. 23/ Rigid band
allocations, to take another example, have prevented amateurs from exploring
extremely wideband modulation techniques. If there is criticism of amateurs
for not being technically more advanced, it could be misdirected. Perhaps one
should place some responsibil ity on the regulations, not the licensees.

Substantially more regulatory flexibility than the service now has would be
desirable. 24/

23/ asc is the “Anerican Standard Code for Information Interchange," which
is a code developed originally to transmit the alphabet and numbers within and
among computers.

24/ on March 6, 1981, the FCC granted a group of amateurs a "Special
Temporary Authority" (STA) to experiment with spread spectrum modulation. In
a press release publicizing the event, the Commission urged anateurs
interested in experimenting with a variety of innovative techniques (e.g.,
digital voice and video, packet switching, trunked repeater systems, etc.) to
petition the Commission for STA's. FCC News, March 9, 1981. STA’s may
provide technically valuable information for policy decisions, particularly in
areas of great technical uncertainty, because they require systematic reports
fran the licensees to the FCC. Nevertheless, the STA route may often be an
inefficient way to encourage amateur experimentation not only because it is
slow, but also because it inherently limits communications using a new
technique to whatever small group of licensees are incl uded under a specific
STA (or small number of STA's). As a result, an STA may not provide a fair
test to a particular new technology, and the final outcome may still unfairly
discourage the technology's future use. But the FCC is moving toward greater
flexibility in a recent Notice of Inquiry and Rulemaking to permit amateurs to
utilize spread spectrum. See, General Docket 81-414, __ F.R. (1981).


-28-

users to unauthorized channel use (or other violations), like the case of the

two "boat" operators above. 32/

D. Common Carrier Mobile Telephones

Several options are available for telephone communications in an
automobile. At one end of the scale are the common carriers. Again, they are
authorized specific frequencies, and operation is similar to a standard
telephone. Reliability and quality are very high. The mobile telephone is
unique among radio services, because it can effectively substitute for most
other mobile radio services used in "directed" communications, and because it
allows the user virtually unrestricted automatic access to the telephone
network. For these reasons, it is extremely popular -- so much so that in
many metropolitan areas there are very long waiting lists for a mobile
telephone. It is likely that many users who would prefer mobile
radiotelephone service often must turn to substitutes.

In much the same way that personal radio can substitute for rural radio
telephone service, it can also provide substitutes for mobile rad iotel ephone
service. Amateur radio can substitute through the use of VHF “autopatch"
repeaters. Users are required to be licensed amateurs, however, to access

such equipment, and all business usage is prohibited on amateur bands. The

32/ As far as the authors have been able to determine, there is no difference
between “connection” and "interconnection," although the FCC generally uses
the longer of the two words. Therefore we use the term "interconnection"
henceforth in this paper. Marine users are allowed fully automatic telephone
interconnection if they conmunicate via "public coast stations," which are
common carriers. Private radio marine channels have more restricted
interconnection rules. And automatic interconnection is prohibited altogether
in the citizens services. CB stations may be connected manually. GMRS is
generally forbidden either manual or automatic interconnect. The only
exception to this rule is for those GMRS stations authorized prior to
October 16, 1978, and then only until the end of the license term.




/ -56-

might have proceeded more quickly and some problems might not have arisen if
hobby goals had been clearly recognized in the rules. Future regulation of
personal radio might be rationalized and made consistent more easily if the
formal goals should recognize more accurately those actual uses that seem to

be reflections of legitimate consumer demands.

5. Liberalization of Minor Rules

As noted above (Section VI-C), a number of amateur regulations seem
meaningless or even counterproductive. None of these rules by itself imposes
a major constraint upon the amateur service's achieving the FCC's goals for
ham radio, but collectively these rules and others like then may have a
significant negative impact. In any event, they tend unnecessarily to use FCC
enforcement resources and contribute to the American citizenry's current
distaste for federal regulation. In summary, among the rules we think should
be eliminated or greatly liberalized are the following: (a) restrictions on
that third-party traffic for which amateurs receive neither direct nor
indirect compensation; 56/ (b) restrictions against "automatic control" and
repeaters on HF, which appear to prevent not only conventional two-channel
repeaters but also such (spectrum-efficient) techniques as HF packet switching

and automatic "electronic mailboxes"; (c) requirements for separate control

56/ International regulations would stil? oblige the United States to
maintain much more stringent regulations against international third-party
messages than against domestic traffic, except where the U.S. goverment might
work out bilateral agreements with individual foreign governments for very
liberal third-party message rules. See International Telecommunications
Union, Radio Regulations, Chapter X, Article 41 (RR 41- 1/2), Geneva, 1975
(revised 1979). These regulations are silent on the content of amateur
messages within a single country.


-38-

on HF; Al/ (c) other repeater rules that require separate control operators at
certain times, whereas sufficient control can probably normally be achieved by
the operators actually talking on a repeater; 4A2/ and (d) implicit
restrictions against spread spectrum modulation and similar novel

technol ogies.

Another serious constraint upon amateur radio, especially upon its
technological goal, is the implicit statutory requirement that the FCC be able
to monitor the content of amateur transmissions. This situation arises from
the statutory prohibition on amateur stations’ being used for the licensees’
financial gain. Furthermore, the vast majority of amateurs surely would not
want their bands unguarded against encrypted business traffic. These

requirements have led the Commission so far not to authorize most codes (other

4l/ On HF bands except ten meters, repeaters offer few attractions Ber $8
But cross-band repeater operations, with HF equipment accessible by sma TT VHF
transceivers, could be quite attractive. Such cross-band operations are
implicitly forbidden by current rules. See Sections 97-3(1), definition of
“repeater operations," and 97.61(c). Packet switching and certain types of
electronic mailboxes would require automatic operations to repeat
transmissions. They both use single frequencies for input and output, unlike
conventional two-channel repeaters. Packet techniques use extremely high-
speed data transmissions to relay bursts ("packets") of data or text.
Electronic mailboxes may store data or text for retrieval upon demand by
addressees. They might store information in a computer memory as ASCII, Morse
code, conventional teletype (Baudot), digitized voice, or some combination;
and they could be used for either point-to-point or point-to-multipoint
messages (or both).

42/ In any event, we think the liability for all illegal transmissions via
repeater should always be on the station originating the illegal transmission,
never on the repeater licensee. With this rule, it is hard to see why the FCC
should care about separate control operators. (Repeater owners, of course,
might want to have separate control circuits and operators, to guard against
malicious interference. . But the choice should be left up to them, rather than
have the FCC impose it upon every repeater operator uniformly.)


-36-

(d) ranote control, and (e) transmissions longer than five minutes. Although
these rules were instituted to reduce spectrum congestion, they are probably
not enforceable today. Congestion is now so high on 27-MHz CB that it is hard
to imagine their removal would make a noticeable difference. Furthermore, the
current mandatory channel plan probably inhibits CB from achieving its full
recreational potential and is probaly without corresponding benefits in

reducing congestion. We doubt that it would be missed.

C. Goals of the Anateur Service

A number of regulations seem inconsistent with the goals of the Anateur
Radio Service. They probably no longer serve any useful purposes either
because of technological advances or because they were based in the first
place on overly pessimistic predictions of troubles that might arise.
Although individually these regulations are not serious constraints to goal
achievement, collectively their impact may be significant. They are
symptomatic of the numerous petty federal regulations so unpopular these days
among the American body politic.

As an example of regulations based on overly pessimistic predictions,
consider the prohibition on amateurs' handling messages related to the
business of any third party (Sec. 97.114c). Originally, amateurs were merely
prohibited from receiving conpensation (direct or indirect) for handling
third-party traffic. The FCC adopted the much more stringent prohibition with
the explanation that third-party business-related traffic would lead to

unacceptable levels of interference and congestion. In doing so, the


-42-

1. Frequency Hopping and Other Spread Spectrum Techniques

Frequency hopping is a type of spread spectrum modulation, originally
used by the military to increase communications security and resistance to
jamming. It involves changing simultaneously, in lock step, the frequencies
of both the transmitter and receiver in a radio link. Frequencies can be
changed from a few times per second up to several thousand times per second.
The information conveyed during any given second is therefore "sliced up," and
the slices go out sequentially on different frequencies. The frequency
hopping sequence repeats periodically, say once per second or per tenth-
second. Such conmunications can be very secure against casual eavesdropping
when the hopping sequence is kept confidential. For example, a frequency band
that allowed 50 channels of acceptable bandwidth for a given modulation or
data rate would allow users to choose among hundreds of thousands of possible
hopping sequences -~- making casual eavesdropping impractical - In addition to
security against eavesdropping, this technology can offer high levels of
protection against the sorts of randan and malicious interference commonly
found today on 27-MHz CB. But the capacity of such systems is now
controversial - Experts’ estimates of message through-put range from 0.3 to

5.0 times the capacity of conventional operations occupying exactly the same


-46-

allow them. If this scenario should not develop, even though the rules had

been changed, it is hard to imagine what society would have lost in the

process.

4. Advantages of These Techniques

A major advantage of either spread spectrum or trunking is that they
could be simultaneously compatible with cheap transceivers operating over
harrow frequency ranges and with the most sophisticated and expensive multi-
mode (data, voice, and picture) equipment. Future equipment may be
economically designed so that operators can be unaware of other transmissions
in a shared band. Therefore they need not care about other users as long as
their equipment could find frequencies adequate for their instant communica-
tions needs. Nor should the FCC or they care whether others sharing their
bands might be using simplex, repeaters, landline interconnection, encryption,
or cellular operations. 48/ By allowing numerous technologies to coexist in a
given frequency band, subject only to power-density constraints and out-of-
band emission limits, the FCC would allow new technologies to develop
naturally under the guidance of marketplace cost and demand signals, rather
than be hampered as today by complex, stow, and inefficient bureaucratic

decisionmaking.

5. A Proposed Type-Acceptance Criterion

We suggest that the Commission's technical regulations for a new
personal radio service specify no more than total in-band and out-of-band

power enission limits, rather than follow today’s practice of referencing

48/ For a discussion of cellular radio, see footnote 57, below, and
accompanying text.


-34-

pressures, of various "needs." The problems that arise from treaty
obligations are probably manageable at modest cost and need not be of great
concern here. But the Comnission's attempts to gauge needs frequently create
problens in achieving its public interest goals -- not just in personal
radio. This traditional system for spectrum allocation has been criticized
before, and we need not reproduce all the arguments here. 36/ Among the most
troublesane problems is that it offers little flexibility geographically or
over time, at least not without complex and slow rulemaking procedures.
Technical advances in the recent past have made the distinctions among
personal radio, private landmobile, and canmon carrier landmobile seem
increasingly artificial. As noted above in the discussion of substitute
services (Section V), spectrum users often ignore these distinctions and the
accompanying regulatory inflexibility, and they react with illegal operations
that may fill legitimate communications needs. There is probably a very high
opportunity cost to the current regulatory inflexibility. This cost may be
highest in relatively uncrowded areas of the country, For example, today's
off-the-shelf technology might allow people in uncrowded areas to have not
only two-way radios in every car, with full automatic interconnect to the
telephone system, but also low-cost "walkie-tal kies" that for some people
might even replace the home telephone. (Cf. Section VII-A, below.) But

today's current policy of national uniformity in allocations would probably

36/ See, for example, Ronald H. Coase, "The Federal Communications
Commission," Journal of Law and Economics, II (1959), 1-40; or Harvey J.
Levin, The Invisible Resource (John Hopkins Press, 1971), esp. chaps. 2 and
9. The situation today 7s virtually the same as when these two works were
written.



*Buyyunsy pasn yak aaey Sunazeue ou Sagyeme aue suoyyne ayy se AP} SY

*

_

Sok ou sak sak ou sak ou OLpes
Jna7eue

SIDLAAVS

ou ou sak ou ou sak sak oLpea
$UaZ 1319

sok ou sak sox ou ou sak aL, qowpue L
ssauisng

sauoyd

sak sak ou ou sak sak sak ayiqow
waLssed

uowwo>

BOL Ades

pavo,[e | uorzoppstune uoLyoauUod4a4qUL suasn sos | quauusaaob | sabessow sabessaw) SOLjSiJ4e}
But yuna azeys auoyda [ay squaueatnbas }Aq [04}U0d jeuosuad } ssauisng -9eueyd
quauunouod | uo SuoLzd}43Se4 AYLLLGUBL ja J 2Lwouode Kaoyze inbas

saynzLysqns awos pue
olpey [euosuag $0 SdL3s149q9e4eUD Aa0ze nbay

T side



-24-

V. Comparisons to “Substitute” Services

The Commission allocates spectrum to a number of communications services
that are substitutes for personal radio, and for which personal radio can in
turn be substituted. Some can substitute for CRS directed-canmunications
uses. They include common carrier mobile telephones, both private and common
carrier paging services, the rural radio telephone service, and business
landmobile radio. Other services can provide partial substitutes for personal
radio's recreational uses, such as the frequencies authorized for non-
licensed, low-power equipment. And still others can provide both directed and
recreational canmunications substitutes, such as the VHF allocations for
recreational boating. FCC regulations limit sharply the Tegal substitut-
ability among radio services. Operators, however, often can shape a
particular service to their own requirements in violation of Commission
regulations. In these instances the substitution of one service for another,.
while unauthorized, may in fact be entirely adequate from the user's
viewpoint. It is useful to review these substitutes for at least three
reasons; First, a comparison helps call into question whether all the
regulatory distinctions among services are truly useful. (See also Table 1,
above.) Second, it gives clues to services consumers truly want. Third, it
indicates areas where spectrum might eventually be freed up if a new, high-
quality personal radio service were available at least partially to replace

other services.

A. Non-licensed, Low-power Devices

Very low-power transmitting equipment may be used by unlicensed users on
a number of frequencies and bands. The power and antenna permitted for a

particular low-power device depends on the part of the spectrum used. All


-55-

Technician. Finally, some CB operators may find the Commission's thirteen
words-per-minute (WPM) Morse code requirement a barrier to entering the
amateur service and enjoying HF radiotelephone communications. A lower
requirement might entice some technically capable (Bers into becoming licensed
hams. Although a knowledge of Morse code is desirable for HF amateur
operators (to recognize international emergency distress calls, for example),
the five WPM Technician’s level is probably adequate for such limited HF
privileges as proposed here.

There are probably no significant costs to increasing Technicans'
privileges in this manner (except perhaps costs of examinations to the FCC if
many newcomers should apply for Technician licenses and possible slight
increases in television interference). The ten-meter band is relatively
vacant even during its most active periods. During its quiet time, when long-
distance propagation is not present, the band is virtually unused. With an
influx of new stations, quiet-time openings will more likely be noticed by
some operators, and the ten-meter allocation will be more actively used in

general.

4. Legitimization of Hobby Communications

At several points above we noted that FCC rules have never given
explicit recognition to purely hobby-type recreational communications in
either amateur or citizens radio, in spite of the fact that many, if not most,
licensees use personal radio mainly as a hobby outlet. Such recreational use
of the radio spectrum can be a fully legitimate "consumer good" and an

appropriate goal for public policy. Some past FCC decisions on personal radio


TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMATY .eccccceccccccrereneressecee seen esse sense ee eeneeeeeeesseeeeeee

Abbreviations and Acronyms ....

Spectrum Diagram cecceccccccssccacccsvcccvccsevescssssssssssccsssesees

PV eFACE. caccnvecccccvcrvecccccsreseessenceeesseeseeseeessereeeseeesees

I.
Il.

Ill.

Iv.

Introduction .essecoses

What Is Personal Radi0? ssccccssaccccccccrcnccvescvcccscvcsscece

A. Differentiated From Other Private Radio and
From Common Carriers cecceccecccccccccccccsccesesscscscees

B. Branches of Personal Radio ...ccseseceeecee errr

1. The General Mobile Radio Service weecsesscscescvveceeces

2. The Radio Control Service .scsccsscscccscceccevceccceces

3. The Citizens Band .......

see c eee r cece cence censereee

4. The Amateur Radio Service cesccccccsccccccccccvccecceees
The Goals Of Personal Radio seecececcecccsccccscccccvccccecvcees

A. The Citizens Radio Services .sssecesseeee

La GMRS ccsccccenccccccnccncnccccvcecceescsssssesecessesens
i

2. CitiZENs Band .rcccccecccccccccvcerccccvccsevecvcssececs

B. The Amateur Service .......

Regulatory Characteristics ceccccescccccccvccnccvecnsccssovevoes
Aw The Citizens Radio Services ceccecececccccscecccecececcecens

B. Amateur Radio sscecsecccvvccvcececceces

Page

vii
ix

xi

a

o © 7

11
ll
12
13
15
20
20
ral


-58-

obsolete and unnecessary in urban areas. 57/1 valid market tests are
possible, then personal, cellular, and other systems should compete freely
with one another in the marketplace, with minimal government interference.
Valid market tests may not be feasible, however, for any number of reasons.
Therefore, an important issue is whether an improved personal radio service
may prematurely undercut a more efficient technology like perhaps cellular
landmobile (or vice-versa!) .

A conflict between cellular systems and an improved personal service at
900 MHz is most likely to develop if the Commission establishes conventional
channel and modulation standards for one or both services, because the
standards would make it difficult to re-allocate frequencies and equipment in
some manner more efficient than the originally mandated configuration.
"Healthy" competition between the two services is most likely if technologies
and standards are left free to develop under the guidance of market cost and
demand signals. In particular there would be advantages to an approach where

cellular and personal licensees could share at least some bands, for example

57/ cellular landmobile radio systems use many low-power transmitters in a
single urban market area on the same frequencies. Each base transmitter on a
particular frequency communicates with mobile units only in its own "cell."
When a mobile unit crosses a cell border, it begins communicating through a
different transmitter. All transmitters in a system are connected to
computerized central control units via landline. Such cellular "re-use" of
radio frequencies may increase spectrum capacity in a given urban area by a
factor of five or more. (f. The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 58, no.
1 (Jan. 1979), entire issue devoted to cellular systems. At least one author
predicts cellular landmobile radio could evolve into a satellite mobile
communications system utilizing spread spectrum and packet switching
technologies. See, Ernest R. Freeman, "Cellular Technology: It's Just The
Beginning," Telocator, Februa 1981, p. 35. The FCC_has recently issued
final rules that authorize cellular radio. 46 F.R. 27655 (May 21, 1981).
Fully operational commercial systems are probably at least two or three years
away.



-57-

operators on repeaters; (d) identification requirements that hamper the use of
advanced technologies; and (e) non-authorization of novel technologies like

spread-spectrum modulation.

VIII. Issues About Personal Radio at 900 MHz

A highly confidential, reliable, low-cost new personal radio service at
900 MHz raises some potentially controversial issues. They include (a) the
new service's relationship to cellular and other landmobile services, (b)
interconnection with the telephone system, (c) appropriate amount of spectrum
to use for a new service, (d) licensing and use of repeaters on the new band,
(e) whether some frequencies should be set aside for “partyline" and special
communications, (f) the merits of government-mandated channel designations and
other "standards," (g) congestion, and (h) automatic transmitter

identification systems (ATIS). These points are discussed in turn.

A. Relationship to Cellular Systens and Other Novel Technologies

The huge capacities projected by Bell Labs and others for cellular
systems could, if achievable at suitably low costs, make most other landmobile

services (including the kinds of personal radio systems we have discussed)


-60-

even be type accepted and mass produced for more than one band. This option
is most likely to be attractive to manufacturers if the new 900-MHz service is

allowed liberal interconnection privileges.

C. How Much Spectrum

Previous discussions of a new WHF personal radio service have assumed
only a few megahertz -- say a maximum of four or five -- ever could or should
be made available. While it certainly is appropriate to work through the
implications of an allocation this size, much larger allocations also deserve
serious consideration. Among other things, such allocations might make
personal radio frequencies fully adequate substitutes for at least some of the
conventional landmobile allocations at 800/900 MHz. They would also allow
greater flexibility in use of non-voice and digital communications in personal

activities.

D. Repeaters

The mobile-to-mobile range of medium-powered 900-MHz equipment is likely
to be no more than three to five miles, without repeaters. This range
compares quite well with current 27-MHz (CB ranges. But repeaters can easily °
increase a UHF system's reliable coverage to an entire metropolitan area
(e.g., the area within the Washington beltway plus a radius of five or more
additional miles). The attraction of repeaters for UHF CB operations may

prove irresistable. Major issues might then face the Commission concerning


-17-

required technical examinations, while not fully adequate as measures of
technical knowledge, do provide incentives for operators to improve their
electronics skills.

Second, many operators find personal satisfaction in donating their
recreational time to public service activities through amateur radio. By
providing free communications to various civic organizations, or by relaying
and delivering messages to third parties throughout the world, amateurs not
only provide a worthwhile service to the public but also establish radio
networks that are used in emergencies. In fact, the Amateur Radio Service is
probably best known to the general public for its activities during natural
disasters and other emergencies.

Third, most amateur operators undoubtedly are lured to the hobby simply
by the desire to communicate. Using rather modest equipment, amateurs can
contact similarly equipped operators in the next state or around the world.
As a by-product of their enthusiasm for contacting operators throughout the
world, amateurs create international goodwill. Many international amateur
projects, like construction of orbital satellites, go beyond simply communi-
cating with other countries and have allowed operators of many nationalities
to work together toward concrete common goals. The result can be a certain
sense of worldwide fraternity. In short, the hobby is a lot of fun, and it
needs perhaps no other justification for most adherents. Unfortunately, this
motivation is not recognized explicitly by the FCC rules. This motivation is
not only fully legitimate but is perhaps the main reason individuals become

amateur licensees. As such, it deserves official recognition.


107/989: Sud by Saw} | 9/u a2
attqou quL og
~puey -03-3UL Od Ana? euly suaZt3ly
Paxtd % ALIGN aULAeW B UOLZeLAY OLpey jeuosuag
$0919) $,99u
OLpey aqeAlug Burqseopeoig

Sdapuuey UOUMOD

Le

UOLSS LUMO) SUOLZeILUNWWOD [eYapel

SODLAUBS OLPRY 4OJ aUNzONAIS LeUOLzeZLUeB4Q JD4

{ aunbiy



3. The Citizens Band

The third sub-group under the CRS is by far the best known -- the
Citizens Band Radio Service (CB). CB is assigned forty HF channels at 27 MHz.
CB was originally intended for directed personal and business messages, but
today it seems to be used by most licensees as a hobby and/or traffic aid.
Its popularity has led in certain geographic areas to congestion that probably
has encouraged some operators to move illegally to unauthorized adjacent
frequencies. 2/

Licensing requirements for all three branches of the CRS are minimal. An

applicant must simply complete an application form and return it to the
FCC. 8/ Minimum age for CB and GMRS licensees is 18. For R/C, the minimum

age is 12 years.

4. The Amateur Radio Service

In contrast to the Citizens Radio Services, where business uses are

permitted, Amateur Radio Service rules expressly prohibit all business-type

L/ Arguments have been made that CB is no longer truly congested, but that
only certain channels (e.g., 19) are actually overloaded. Most attempts to
measure CB congestion have been inconclusive. In our opinion the band is
congested in many urban areas, although new evidences based upon hard data
rather than anecdotes might prove otherwise. On the other hand, decisions to
adopt the kinds of flexibility recommended below (see Section VII) should
depend not so much upon judgments about whether CB today is congested but
rather upon judgments about the benefits such flexibility would bring to
potential users of personal radio relative to its costs (e.g., costs of
interference to other services).

8/ But the GMRS application form is much more complex than the CB
application. And applicants for GMRS licenses must request a specific
frequency. As a result, many applicants coordinate their frequency selection
with existing users in their area. This coordination is usually performed by
the local equipment supplier.


-5-

category that includes a large variety of firms) utilize yet a third group of
frequencies. 2/ In all these services, canmunications are authorized for
business purposes only. For example, a taxi driver's spouse cannot legally
have the taxi company's radio dispatcher tell the driver to pick up a dozen
eggs on the way home (although such transmissions occur frequently -- and we
doubt that any serious harm to the public interest results).

Common carrier radio is different from personal radio and other private
services because users are not licensed themselves, but rather pay licensed
firms (radio common carriers or local telephone companies) for access to
mobile telephone systems. Moreover, common carrier communications carry no
legal restrictions on either business or personal content and therefore would
be an ideal substitute in many cases for personal radio were it not for the
high costs of mobile telephone equipment and the artificial shortages of
‘allocated frequencies. 3/ Fora summary canparison of the regulatory
distinctions among camon carrier mobile radio, private landmobile, and the

"two branches of personal radio, see Table 1.

2/ For newly assigned landmobile frequencies above 800 MHz, however, users
have been assigned to channels without respect to lines of business. This
approach has been dubbed “interservice sharing."

3/ We say “artificial” because today's sparse allocation of frequencies to
mobile telephone service is the result of FCC policies, which could be
reversed, rather than some intrinsic characteristic of the electromagnetic
spectrum. In fact, the FCC has recently authorized a large bloc of
frequencies for "cellular" radio, which could significantly alienate the
shortage of common carrier landmobile channels. Cf. note 57 below and
accompanying text.


-18-

A recent survey indicates most amateurs agree to the importance of the
FCC's formal goals. 20/ Most observers would agree that the service is
adequately meeting the public service and international goals. In contrast,
many would also agree that the goals of expanding technical skills and
Manpower and advancing the radio art have fallen on hard times in recent
years. Although no quantitative proof is available on this point, relatively
few amateurs appear to be deeply involved at the technical frontiers of radio,
canpared to earlier decades. One reason may be that the advent of modestly
priced, high-performance equipment has limited the average amateur's everyday
technical involvement to antenna construction and minor transmitter/receiver
repair. 21/ On the other hand, amateurs today seem increasingly interested in

conputers, which can provide expanded communications. 22/ This area is

20/ tid.

21/ The FSU study found less than five percent of amateurs are involved in
technically sophisticated areas of radio communication such as satellites,
narrow band voice modulation, digital data canmunications, or microwave
experimentation. Ibid. No data appear to be available to prove that hams are
less involved technically with radio today than they were before World War

II. But the notion of less technical involvement seens almost universal. On
the other hand, one should be aware that nostalgia about the "good old days”
of amateur innovation is not new. Take for example the 1910 complaint of
radio pioneer Lee De Forest: "The art of wireless has now becane so complex,
the money invested in its development so considerable, and the number of
highly trained specialists engaged in careful research so large, that it seems
unnatural to expect to-day any valuable contribution to the science from an
amateur working independently and with small means. In the early days this
was not the case." Hearings Before a Subconmittee of the Committee on Naval
Affairs of the House of Representatives on H. J. resolution 95, Gist Congress,
2nd Session (1910), p. 75. it hardly seems necessary to observe how wrong De
Forest seems to have been in the light of subsequent history. He also
complained about “manufacturing concerns engaged in turning out great
quantities of cheap and inferior wireless apparatus . . . to pander to the
newly created amateur market." Ibid. The authors have heard similar comments
about today’s CB market.

22/ The same survey showed over ten percent of hams are presently active in
personal computers. Ibid.


-2-

public lands are given over to parks, may be a wise national policy. In fact,
the FCC has always seemed canfortable with the purely recreational character-
istics of amateur radio, even though FCC rules have never formally recognized
hobby canmunications among the service's goals. Moreover, the Commission also
has dropped some restrictions against hobby-like communications in the CB
service. Regulation of personal radio might proceed more smoothly and more
rationally across the board if the rules stated that purely recreational or
hobby communications are among the official goals of both amateur and citizens
radio. Beyond this point we do not take issue with the FCC's stated goals for
personal radio. On the other hand, regulation of both branches sometimes may
have blocked goal achievement and in particular may have impeded the use of
new technologies, such that the public may get only a part of the possible
benefits from personal radio.

The organization of the paper is as follows: First, a general background
on personal radio's two main branches (Section II), their goals (Section Ill),
and regulatory characteristics (Section IV). Then personal radio is compared
to other services that, from time to time and place to place, are substitutes
for personal radio in either its recreational or directed-message aspects
(Section V). Such other services include low-power non-licensed devices, VHF
recreational marine radio, rural radio telephones, canmon carriers (i.e.,
mobile telephone service), and private (business) landmobile radio. Section
VI discusses present FCC regulations in terms of their relationships to, and
their conflicts with, the goals of personal radio. Next (Section VII)
specific suggestions are presented on rules changes and new technologies that

could benefit the public in its use of both current and yet-to-be-authori zed




~59-

via spread spectrum modulation. This approach could allow careful phasing-in
and phasing-cut of different systems and licensees as customer demands,
technologies, and economic conditions evolve over time. As stated above, the
Commission probably cannot predict well the best uses of a particular band ;

devoted to personal radio, as witnessed by the history of both CB and GMRS.

B. Automatic Telephone Interconnection

A personal radio service along the lines discussed above would be a
natural candidate for fully automated interconnection with the Jandline
telephone system. Put it might then take on certain characteristics of canmon
carriers and embroil licensees, regulators, and the courts in a morass of
Title II questions. 58/ We are not overly concerned about the courts’ and
Comnission's abilities to cross these bridges when they get to them, but we
would encourage others to discuss the issues without waiting for them to arise
jn a controversial setting. We recommend a permissive interconnect stand. We
are particularly interested in seeing the 900-MHz service structured in such a
way that, if the users desire and if economic conditions justify, the
traditional lines between private radio services and common carrier radio

services could blur, and bands could be combined. Perhaps equipment could

58/ Title Il is the part of the Communications Act that sets forth the FCC's
powers and responsibilities for regulating common carriers. Title III
establishes the regulation of the radio spectrum. Common carriers that use
radio come under both Titles II and III. Private radio licensees are
regulated only under Title III. Automatic interconnection for personal radio
might also raise substantial legal and economic questions as to responsibility
for "switches," who must pay for what services, and how billing might be
accomplished.


-44-

on cost grounds for some users. 47/ ("Might" is emphasized because no fim
cost figures are available for either technology at mass-production levels.)
Decentralized trunking works as follows: Units are able to scan a specific
frequency bloc or certain discrete channels in order to locate a clear spot.
(A very small number of channels -- or even one -- might be sufficient for
users in rural areas, but New York City users might want to invest in 50- or
100-channel units). When someone at unit A wants to talk to someone at B, the
operator of unit A needs only to know (a) the set of channels unit B is
scanning and (b) B's access code. Operator A then punches B's channels and
code into a memory circuit, and A‘s scanner locates a clear frequency, locks
in, and tells the transmitter to call B. When B's scanner hears its own
number, it locks in and sends A an acknowledgement signal. Then A "siezes"
the channel and begins to transmit the message. Other units can be designed
to stay off the channel until A and B finish their traffic. With proper -

equipment design, therefore, operators could be totally unaware of, and need

Als Conventional centralized trunking requires one or more calling channels,
plus central control equipment. Trunking via scanning, or "decentralized"
trunking, can be less expensive, since it requires no central control
equipment. It also may be more spectrum-efficient, since it requires no
calling channels. But its advantage decreases, and may eventually disappear,
for large numbers of trunked channels (e.g., more than ten per system). This
finding, however, depends on many assumptions about technology, message
length, etc., that may not always hold. See, George Sarver and Sam Tropea,
“Evaluation of Spectrum Utilization Efficiency of 800 MHz Trunked and
Conventional Private Land Mobile Systems," unpublished paper, Office of
Science and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, May 30, 1980.
Moreover, two users of trunked personal radio who wanted to talk to one
another would often not belong to the same "system," in which case
decentralized trunking would be essential to them. A disadvantage may be that
decentralized trunking cannot "queue" users in direct mobil e-to-mobile
communications, even though queuing may improve spectrum efficiency by acting
as a non-price rationing device.




-15-

deterred recreational communications in the GMRS acted to some extent in
reverse for CB. Commercial licensees willing to pay for more reliable
communications than possible at 27 MHz opted for assignments in other
frequency bands. Personal licensees’ desires for recreational communications,
technological advancements, and the 1974 gasoline crisis (when CB got national
publicity as an aid in locating fuel and avoiding speed traps) reinforced one
another and resulted in explosive growth of the CB service. The large number
of CBers and their disregard for many regulations led the Commission to re-
examine and lift a number of CB restrictions in 1975. Today, CB is growing
more slowly than in the mid-70's, and it may even be contracting, but it is

still used heavily as a recreational outlet and traffic aid by citizens. 15/

B. The Anateur Service

In contrast to the CB and GMRS services, amateur radio is entirely a
hobby or recreational service. No business communications are permitted.
More importantly, in return for use of spectrum and many different operating

modes, amateurs must have certain technical and operating skills. 16/ This

1s/ During 1976 the Commission averaged over a half-million CB license
applications a month. During recent years, licensing and equipment sales have
fallen sharply. It is not clear whether this decline represents merely a
decrease in the growth rate, or a true fall in usage of CB, or whether
licensees simply are not bothering to renew at the end of their licenses'
(five-year) terms even though they may continue to use CB actively.

16/ Moreover, amateurs may build and modify their own equipment, which CBers
may not legally do. R/C users are permitted, however, limited authority to
construct and modify 27 MHz equipment.


-51-

1. What to do with 27-MHz CB?

A new personal radio service at 900 MHz would not make the 27-MHz
service obsolete, in spite of the current levels of television interference
(TVI) the service generates. Even after a 900-MHz service is available, there
still may be ample justification for 27-MHz personal radio. There are, of
course, intrinsic technical differences between 27 MHz and 900 MHz. These
differences result not only in different equipment costs, but also in
different opportunities for recreational activities on the two bands.
Considerable personal demand for 27 MHz may continue into the foreseeable
future. Most commercial users of the 27-MHz band seem already to have vacated
it for more desirable frequencies. Probably the only users that especially
want this band now are the current occupants, the (ers, plus some amateurs
(from whom part of the band was taken over 20 years ago) + 52/ Since there do
not seem to be any net benefits from re-allocating the 27-MHz band, we
recommend consideration be given to expanding its allowed uses. Specifically
the FCC might wish to consider (a) elimination of the remaining "hobby"
prohibitions, such as those on lengthy transmissions and long distance
communications, (b) dropping mandatory channel ization, (c) easing technical

restrictions to allow innovative modulation schemes, and (d) expansion of the

$2) 42 F.C.C. 874 (1988).


~53-

MHz might be constructive, a mix of these users at 900 MHz could also have
certain advantages. There might have to be some distinctions between the two
services at 900 MHz since the Coanmunications Act clearly prohibits at least
some business communications to amateurs. Say Further, because the two groups
have different relative abilities to deal with interference, the amateurs
might have additional flexibility for higher power and emission limits, and
use of "hanebrew" equipment. The ability of the non-amateur group to
communicate with amateurs might provide incentives for them to become more
technically proficient or even to upgrade to amateur status. Moreover,
"universal" interest in these frequencies might stimulate amateurs with
technical expertise to experiment on the band, in turn developing new
technologies and providing increased demand for it. Although such predictions
about the prospects for such a shared band may be optomistic, there do not
appear to be any significant costs or disadvantages in structuring a service

flexible enough merely to allow these or similar developments.

3. Expanded Privileges for Technican Class Amateurs

The first two proposals in this section suggested linking the amateur
and citizens' services both at 27 and 900 MHz, partly to provide convenient

avenues for CBers to becane more proficient technically. The third proposal

54/ Since the FCC's monitoring requirements (see pp. 38-39 above) will
probably rule out encryption by amateurs, their use of the band might not be
as "private" as other users, for example. Other distinctions might also be
required so as to not violate Section 3(q) of the Communications Act.

Personal radio users cannot encrypt under present rules, but there is no
statutory bar (as there is implicitly with the amateur service) to their doing
SO.


-54- i

looks toward a change in the amateur license structure that could provide
greater impetus for lower ranked amateur operators also to upgrade. ‘The idea
here is to mix Technician operators with General and higher licensees
somewhere in the HF radio telephone bands. Such a link could be useful since
both Novice and Technican amateurs are now severely restricted in their HF
operating privileges. This situation might motivate at least some of the
illegal operators continually noted on the edge of the 27-MHz Citizens Band to
becone amateurs and to operate legally in the HF bands. In addition, amateur
VHF repeater abuse complaints are on the increase, perhaps as a partial result
of unfamiliarity by new Technician licensees with the operating habits,
procedures, and courtesies of more experienced hams. Allowing Technican Class
amateurs to operate in at least part of the ten-meter (28.5-MHz) phone band
may be helpful in solving these problems. Such a provision would expose them
to a completely different set of procedures from VHF repeaters, where most
Technicians now congregate. In addition, the increased operating enjoyment
(e.g., worldwide communications) might well entice at least some Technicians
to upgrade, in order to enjoy similar activities on other HF bands. 55/ Even
those that do not upgrade could be exposed to different operating procedures
and courtesies that might carry over to the VHF bands. Moreover, Novice
operators would have a stepping stone for further use of their HF equipment,

and they might have correspondingly stronger incentives to upgrade to

55/ one may, of course, plausibly argue the contrary; i.e., phone privileges
on ten meters might reduce Technicians’ incentives to upgrade. We wonder if
anyone can develop objective data on actual licensee attitudes and thereby
lift the discussion fron the realm of opinion to the realm of fact? And cf.
Section VII-B above.


-12-

This history suggests that the FCC (or any goverment agency, for that matter)
finds it extremely difficult to predict accurately the future best use of a
particular bit of spectrum devoted to a service like personal radio. We
suggest below (Sections VII-A and VIII-E, for example) that for this reason,
any new personal radio service should have an absolute minimum of govern-

mental ly-imposed technical and operational standards.

1. MRS

GMRS has sixteen channels. Eight are assigned for both base and
mobile stations, and another eight are assigned for mobiles only. GMRS now is
used almost exclusively by firms rather than individuals, as a substitute for
conventional business frequencies. This pattern apparently was not contem-
plated when the FCC established the service. 12/ several factors may have
deterred recreational and other personal uses and have promoted business use
of GMRS. First, compared to 27-MHz (CB) equipment, GMRS equipment is
expensive. It is, however, priced competitively with other business Jand-
mobile equipment. Second, GMRS lacks much of the regulatory rigidity of other
private radio services. Third, until recently GMRS was less congested than
other private radio bands. Thus GMRS could, in many instances, provide
businesses with better canmunications for less cost than could the other

private radio services. Another reason most of GMRS is business-related is

a

12/ Business use was allowed in the original GMRS (called then the "Citizens
Radio Service"), but the Commission's emphasis clearly was on use by
individuals (and perhaps small firms) rather than grganizations: FCC Docket

No. 6651, Report, January 15, 1945, p. 184; also 39 F.C.C. 68 (1945) at p.
146.


-64-

comments on the FCC's Notice of Inquiry for a new personal radio service
generally favored ATIS. A voluntary standard would allow technical

flexibility consistent with our other recommendations.

IX. Concluding Observations

One of the major aims of this paper has been to propose a new regulatory
approach for personal radio, an approach with the fewest possible restrictions
on users, uses, and technologies, in order to allow innovation, technological
change, and maximum user choice. Throughout the paper have been references to
regulations that may have prevented innovation. Indeed, regulation often
seems to have a bias against the new. The belief that regulation may inhibit
development of the radio art is hardly novel. It may be traced back at least
to 1910 -- a quarter-century before the FCC began operating. 63/ Economists

have also noted such bias against technical progress in fields as diverse as

63/ The United States had no legislation to regulate radio until 1912. The
1906 Berlin Radio Conference had adopted comprehensive regulations that were
ratified in treaty form by the major European nations, but the United States
did not ratify. During 1910 congressional hearings on wireless, several
witnesses claimed regulation might seriously impede technical progress. Mr.
Cloyd Marshall of United Wireless Telegraph Company said his firm supported
some legislation to overcome America's "wireless anarchy." But "we do not
want the parental laws that exist in European governments, because such laws
stifle the development of the industry." And Mr. James Hayden, representing
the National Electric Signaling Company (founded to support the inventions of
R. A. Fessenden, perhaps the most important pioneer of wireless voice
transmission), claimed that U. S. adoption of the Berlin treaty “would have
prevented most important improvements that have been made in the art."
Moreover, "a commission . . . might make a complete system of regulations, and
it might do so in a manner that would not interfere with the practice of the
art as it is known to-day. But there would be infinite risk of the adoption
of some regulation which would prevent most important improvements in future
{sic]." Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Naval Affairs of
the House of Representatives on H. J. Resolution 95, 61st Congress, 2nd
Session (1910), pp. 11 and 16-17.



TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page
c. Liberalization or Elimination of CB Licensing ....seceee
D. Other Recommendations ..sceccesecccceccvcccecscscsececes

1. What to do with 27-MHZ CB? .cecceccccccccccscesevcees

2. Coexistence of Anateur and Citizens
Services at 900 MHZ .ccccccccccccesevcvovccecscsces

3. Expanded Privileges for Technician Class Amateurs ...

4. Legitimization of Hobby Communications...ccccsccceeee

5. Liberalization of Minor Rules .ecesesesee aeeee
VIII. Issues About Personal Radio at 900 MHZ sscccresceccsccessceccese
A. Relationship to Cellular Systems and Other
Novel TechnologieS seccccccceveccccvccvccsevccccsccses
B. Automatic Telephone Interconnection ... se cceeeeeeee
C. How Much Spectrum yeccccvcccccccccccccscccsessssecessees
D. REPG ater sesecccccccccccccccccnccencssceesseesseeeseees
E. "Partyline" Channels and Other Designations ..cesccseees
Fe Other Govermment-Mandated Standards .sccececsececseeves
G. CONGESTION ceveveccvccecccccccescenvccscerceveneessscees
He Automatic Transmitter Identification .ecesccsscecsccoees

IX. Concluding Observations. .cccccecccccccccccccsessscvcccescsvevncs
About the AUthOrs .scccccccccccccsccccvcesccscssscecevesscvscese

Working Paper Series .....

-tii-

49
50
51

52
53
55
56
57

57
59°
60
60
61
62
62
63
64
69
70


Vv.

VI.

VII.

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

Page

Comparisons to "Substitute" Services .....

dee c cee ceccoececcee

A. Non-licensed, Low-power Devices wsssseceee

B. VHF Marin€ secceccccccccccccscccccvccsscesssscesess seeee
Cc. Rural Radio Telephone Service ..ccsecscvccecscccccvccece
D. Common Carrier Mobile Telephones ..sesccecceeevees seeeee
E. Business Landmobile ..ceeeesececccceeece eo veeccccseees eee
F. Amateur ceccccccecccccccccceees seseseees see eeceee teens
How Personal Radio Rules May Hinder Achievement of FCC Goals ...
A. Overall Commission Goals .ssceeceeceeee eeccvecceccees eee
B. CRS Goals cececccccceccccccccccnccnccssccescccvcssscvees
Cc. Goals of the Amateur Service ......06 eecceccceee eeeceeee

Recommendations secsceccscsecccaccccccvcsscscsvessssscnsessecens
A Permitting New Technologies for CRS ..... ecccccescccecee
1. Frequency Hopping and Other Spread

Spectrum Technologies cecececevcccccccccecevccsvecs
2. Decentralized Trunking ..sssecceccseceees rrr reer
3. The Personal Radio "Black. BOX" ..sscesceseeeeees sence
4. Advantages of These Techniques ....+-. oevcccccccccces
5. A Proposed Type-Acceptance Criterion ...... eeccceee oe
B. Strengthening the Technical Orientation of the
Amateur Service secqescccesvecccececce soeccceceee sence

lo.
-ii-

24
24
25
27
28
29
29
30
30
32
36°
39
39

42
43
45
46
46

48


personal radio frequencies. Finally a number of important issues related to

our recommendations (Section VIII) are discussed and concluding observations

are presented (Section IX).

II. What _Is Personal Radio?

A. Differentiated From Other Private Radio and From Common Carriers

The Federal Communications Commission has established distinct classes of
spectrum users, called "services." Licenses to operate radio communications
systems are given to individuals or organizations that qualify as members of
one or more of the various radio services. Except for personal radio, the
services are usually defined by lines of business. And besides the broadcast
and common carrier services, which utilize radio transmissions as actual lines
of business, the Commission also authorizes radio communications to firms,
institutions, and local and state governments for incidental use. These
incidental users, plus personal radio, conprise (according to FCC terminology)

the "private radio" services. For a summary view of all private services, see

Figure l.

Among the "non-personal" private radio licensees, similar users
presumably have similar communications requirements, and therefore they are
issued similar authorizations. For example, below 800 MHz all public safety
licensees (mostly police and fire) use the same sets of frequencies. Like-
wise, land transportation firms (like taxicabs and railroads) share other sets

of frequencies among themselves, and "industrial communications" users (a


Summary

The FCC's category "personal radio” has two main branches: amateur radio and the
Personal Radio Services (PRS). The part of the PRS with most licensees is the Citizens
Band (CB), but PRS also has two smaller divisions — the General Mobile Radio Service
(GMRS) and the Radio Control Service (R/C). Amateuw Ticenses are issued only to
individual applicants that pass Morse code and electronics proficiency tests. There are
no age requirements. PRS licenses, however, are available to business firms and to
almost any person over age 18 And while amateur radio frequencies may not be used for
any business-related messages, PRS frequencies have virtually no message content
restrictions, so that licensees may discuss almost any business or personal topic. On the
other hand, amateurs have extremely broad privileges with regard to frequencies, power,
and technologies (in return for their demonstrated technical and operating knowledge),
whereas PRS licensees have very restricted operating privileges. The F CC's stated goals
for the amateur service include technical progress for the radio art, public service
communications, and international goodwill. The goals for the PRS are primarily
convenient and low-cost radio com munications to serve the personal and business needs
of individuals. FCC rules do not recognize purely hobby or recreational communications
as goals for either amateur radio or PRS, in spite of the fact that recreational uses are
prime motives for many licensees in both branches of personal radio.

This paper's unifying theme is a general call for much greater flexibility than now exists
in the regulation of personal radio. The authors believe such flexibility can be an
important contributor to the achievement of personal radio's goals. They point to a
number of current FCC regulations that may inhibit the achievement of these goals.
Specifically, they suggest deregulation or liberalization of the following: (a) restrictions
that may inhibit new technologies, like spread spectrum modulation and trunking, in both
the PRS and the amateur service; (b) certain restrictions on amateur repeater operations;
(c) certain restrictions on amateur third-party messages; (d) mandatory technical
standards for PRS equipment; and (e) CB licensing. Moreover, they suggest a type-
acceptance criterion for 900-M Hz personal radio based solely upon in-band and out-of-
band power emission limits. This criterion would permit simultaneous use in the new
band of such technologies as (a) conventional voice, (b) computer-to-com puter Tinks, (c)
electronic mail, and (d) video. They think anim proved personal radio service along these
lines might allow some users, particularly in non-urban areas, to substitute personal radio
for business landmobile, mobile telephones, rural radiotelephones, and/or VHF marine
radio. Also, they suggest (a) systematic study of means to strengthen amateur radio's
technological orientation, (b) consideration of a code-free VHF amateur license for
technically qualified applicants, (c) expanded HF operating privileges for Technician
Class amateurs, and (d) allowing some amateur operations on 27- and 900-M Hz PRS
frequencies. Finally, they recom mend that recreational and hobby uses for personal
radio have explicit recognition in the rules.

-\-


-66-

and in fact an approach even more liberal than the amateur model may be
preferable. 58/

The history and current status of personal radio clearly illustrate
regulatory bias against new technology. Take specifically 27-MHz CB. It is
common to encounter suggestions around the FCC that CB is not truly congested
and moreover that the recent decline in CB license applications means there is
no longer a great urgency to the FCC's establishing a new personal radio
service at 900 MHz. It may be, however, that congestion is severe in at least
some areas and that the fall-off in applications does not necessarily mean a
fall-off in the public's demand for CB (since many people may simply be
Operating without either new or renewed licenses). But a much more important
point is at stake. Even if congestion is not severe at 27 MHz, and even if
the decline in CB license applications should mean a decline in public
requirements for current 27-MHz CB, and even if the public should for the time
being manifest little explicit interest in 900-MHz personal radio, one still
ought not conclude there is no public "demand" for an improved personal radio

service. As mentioned earlier, the FCC's predaninant mode of spectrum

£8/ 4 regulatory model that is perhaps implicit in the FCC's Notice of
Inquiry on amplitude-compandored single sideband {ACSB) and other new
technologies for landmobile communications is closer to our recanmended
approach than the amateur model, insofar as it might not impose any
restrictions on bandwidth or on modulation type. See Docket 80-440, 45 F.R.
63305 (Septanber 24, 1980). Cf. Morgan O'Brien, "The Big Squeeze: What ACSB
Means to the Market," MobileTimes, February 1981, pp. 17-23, for a brief,
optimistic discussion Of ACSB’s potential to revolutionize the entire
landmobile market. We generally share the optimism about ACSB. With
appropriate regulatory flexibility, ACSB might become technically and
economically feasible for 900-MHz personal radio. (Current technical
constraints may limit its first commercial applications to VHF, however .)



-69-

About the Authors

Alex D. Felker is an electronics engineer in the F CC's Office of Plans and Policy. He has
previously worked in the Commission's Field Operations Bureau in the Long Beach,
California, and Norfolk, Virginia, District Offices, where his activities included CB and
amateur radio enforcement and investigation. Earlier he worked in the FCC's Common
Carrier Bureau and Emergency Com munications Division in Washington. He received the
B.S.E.E. from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 1972.

James A. Brown, Jr. is an economist in the FCC's Office of Plans and Policy. He has
been employed also by the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Institute for
Defense Analyses, and Soochow University (Taiwan), He received the B.A. from the
University of Mississippi in 1962 and the Ph.D. from Duke University in 1966.


-7-

B. Branches of Personal Radio

Personal radio is a conbination of frequency assignments for (1)
"amateur" use (the Amateur Radio Service) and (2) recreational and utility use
by private citizens at large (the Citizens Radio Services). 4/ Amateur radio
has a long history. In fact the first regular non-maritime users of the radio
spectrum were amateur operators. 5/ But only after World War II did the
Commission allocate spectrum for recreational and directed personal
communications by private citizens other than "amateurs." The Citizens Radio
Services (CRS) were established in 1945. They have changed substantially
since then. Some changes were due to new regulatory policies, but the more
substantial changes have been driven by technology and socio-economic
shifts. Today there are three separate sub-groups within the Citizens Radio
Services: (1) The General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS), (2) the Radio Control
Service (R/C), and (3) the Citizens Band Radio Service (CB).

4! the official terminology (in FCC Regulations) for what this paper calls
the "Citizens Radio Services" is actually the “Personal Radio Services." On
our terminology, see p. viii above. We put the word "amateur" in quotes
because its usage today has taken on connotations (thanks to its regulatory
history) that set it apart from the standard dictionary definition of
“amateur," as opposed to "professional." In fact, a large minority of today's
U.S. amateur radio operators are telecanmunications professionals. It would
not be suprising to find that a higher proportion of CB licensees are actually
"amateurs" in the dictionary sense than are the “amateur radio operators."
Amateur operations in the regulatory sense are distinguished from
"professional" and CB operations in that amateur frequencies may not be used
"professionally" or for any business communications. But “amateurs”
themselves may be both “professionals” and CB licensees.)

5/ warconi himself started using the radio spectrum as an “amateur." Later,
of course, he became a "professional," even though he was quoted in the 1930's
as saying he still "likes to characterize himself as an amateur." Clinton B.
DeSoto, Two Hundred Meters and Down (Anerican Radio Relay League, West
Hartford, Conn., 1936), p. 14.







~30-

frequencies, with low power equipment. So it appears at least some illegal

users find the amateur bands an entirely acceptable substitute for the legal

business landmobile service.

VI. How Personal Radio Rules May Hinder Achievement of FCC Goals

Section III] campared and contrasted the formal goals of the various
personal services with their actual uses. Section IV described the regulatory
structure of each service. Section V examined other radio services that
could -- if permitted -- provide good substitutes for personal radio (and
vice-versa). The following section looks more closely at FCC regulations that
may limit ‘not only user satisfaction but also achievement of the FCC's own

goals.

A. Overall Commission Goals

The broadest statement of the Commission's goals in regulating the radio
spectrum is in Section 303 of the Communications Act, which states that the
FCC should “generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in
the public interest." We believe this general goal encompasses a number of
unstated sub-goals, like technical efficiency, economic efficiency,
technological progress, consumer sovereignty, competition, and diversity.

There probably is no necessary conflict among these sub-goals, so that a good


HF
kHz

MF

MHz

PRS

R/C

RCC

SSB

'

Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)

High Frequency: That part of the radio spectrum from 3 to 30 MHz.

Wi Se
Kilohertz: International %$tandard terminology for one thousand cycles per
second. Replaces "kilocycles" or "kcs." Used to measure frequency in the
radio spectrum.

Medium Frequency: That part of the radio spectrum from 300 kHz to 3 MHz.

Megahertz: International standard terminology for one million cycles per
second. Replaces "megacycles" or"Mcs." Used to measure frequency in the
radio spectrum. One MHz equals 1000 kHz.

Personal Radio Services: Formal FCC terminology for the services regulated
under Part 95 of the Rules, namely CB, GMRS, and R/C. Identical to what is
called "CRS" in this paper.

Radio Control Service: A group of frequencies in both the HF and VHF
spectrums that individuals may use for short-range control of remote objects
like model airplanes and pocket pagers.

Radio Common Carrier: A non-wireline firm that provides mobile telephone
and/or radio paging services to the general public. These services are also
provided by local wireline telephone companies, in competition with R CC's.

Single Sideband: A type of modulation used particularly for amateur and
commercial voice transmissions in the HF spectrum. Some use also in CB
radio. More reliable than AM under some operating conditions. But its sound
quality is usually less than that of AM.

-viti-


ACSB

AM -

ARS -

ASCI

ATS -

CB

CRS -

GMRS-

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Amplitude Compandored Sideband: A new and largely untried technology for
improving the effectiveness of SSB. If successful, it could lead to vast

increases in the capacity of frequencies now devoted to landmobile
communications.

Amplitude Modulation, The original technology for transmitting voice and

music by radio. Used today mainly for CB and standard AM radio
broadcasting.

Amateur Radio Service: A hobby based upon a large group of internationally
designated frequencies and numerous operating privileges. Licenses are
available only to technically qualified individuals. Successful applicants must
pass proficiency tests in electronics technology and Morse code. Amateur
radio may not be used for any business or commercial messages.

American Standard Code for Information Interchange: One among many codes
for transmitting numbers and characters of the alphabet. ASCII was developed

originally for computer systems, but is now popular also for straight
communications circuits.

Automatic Transmitter Identification System: An electronic device, built into

a transmitter, that sends out a unique identification signal without action by
an operator. ,

Citizens Band Radio Service: The most popular branch of the Citizens Radio
Services (CRS), which allows very low-cost, short-distance HF
communications. It is used mostly in automobiles and trucks.

Citizens Radio Services: Informal terminology adopted in this paper to
describe the group comprised of the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS),
Citizens Band (CB), and Radio Control Service (R/C). All are characterized by
extremely liberal licensing procedures, which make them open to alm ost
anyone over age'18 See also "PRS," which has the identical meaning.

Frequency Modulation: A technology for transmitting voice and music that
usually gives higher sound quality than either AM or SSB. Used not only in FM
broadcasting but also in VHF and UHF landmobile equipment by common
carriers, business and public safety services, amateurs, and GMRS.

General Mobile Radio Service: A UHF radio service open to almost any
adult. Unlike CB, it is structured to discourage "partyline" communications,
and it has relatively expensive equi pment requirements.

-vii-


-43-

spectrum. 46/ Other spread spectrum techniques might also be used. They too
would offer the security and “craceful degradation" characteristics of
frequency hopping. Because the benefits and costs of spread spectrum relative
to conventional narrowband systems are not yet established, any Commission
action that precludes the use of this technology at 900 MHz could be a

disservice to the public.

2. Decentralized Trunking
A "trunked" radio system is one that gives users automated access to
more than one channel, in order to facilitate message flow under congested
channel conditions. It may utilize central control equipment, or it may be
"decentralized" and use control equipment based on "scanning" devices in
mobile units. Trunking offers less protection against interference and

eavesdropping than do spread spectrum techniques, but it might be preferable

46/ the 5.0 efficiency figure was developed in George R. Cooper and Raymond
W. Nettleton, "A Spread Spectrum Techni que for High Capacity Mobile
Communications," IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. V1-27 (Nov. 1978), pp. 264-

275. It applies to cellular systems and may not be valid for conventional
systems. One examination of spread spectrum (SS) efficiency estimated
spectrum efficiency of SS technology would only be about equal to conventional
systems. This assumption used high data rates (32 K-bit/sec.). Even if it is
accurate, there still seems to be justification for SS because of its inherent
privacy and graceful degradation. See Paul Henry, "Spectrum Efficiency of a
Frequency-Hopped-DPSK Spread Spectrum Mobile Radio System," IEEE Trans. Veh.
Tech., vol. VT-28 (Nov. 1979), pp- 327-332. The actual efficiency of spread
spectrum techniques as compared to conventional FM is a function of a number
of different variables, many of which depend on the needs of users. An FH
scheme as described here was examined in a recent report for the FCC (W. C.
Scales, Potential Use of Spread Spectrum Techniques in Non-Government
Applications, the MITRE Corporation Report =80W335, December 1980,
available from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22161, as Report No. PB81-165284).
Estimates in this report of the maximum equivalent number of users per
conventional channel for SS modulation varied between 0.3 and 1.4.


-26-

directed communications for ship operations, safety, and relaying of messages
(public correspondence).

The HF and MF assignments are primarily for long-distance canmunications
on the open seas. The VHF assignments are primarily for bay, harbor, and
river traffic. As a result, recreational boaters overwhelmingly use VHF. The
growth in recreational boating in the past decade, coupled with the steady
decline in the cost of VHF equipment, has resulted in tremendous growth of VHF
marine radio in coastal and river areas. Many boaters also utilize CB radio
for marine communications. 32/

The other side of the coin is that many boaters first exposed to VHF
communications on the water are now using the band in non-maritime
recreational and utility pursuits. According to reports from FCC District
Offices located in areas with dense ship populations, it is not uncommon to
hear a variety of non-marine canmunications on the VHF marine channels even .
though such traffic is prohibited by FCC rules. Anything from taxi dispatch
and other business uses to canmunications between spouses -- one mobile, the
other based at their residence -- have been noted by FCC officials on the
marine channels. And in addition to this substitution for personal radio, VHF
marine channels may lend thenselves as unauthorized substitutes for some
common carrier services, as documented in many FCC investigative reports. One
particular instance with which the authors are familiar involved access to an
inland marine operator's radio system by two “pleasure boats" some seventy
miles from the water. The “boats" were actually two land-based entertainment

businesses that utilized VHF marine channels to connect with the telephone

3Y/ One of the authors has frequently had difficulty distinguishing VHF
marine canmunications fron the Citizens Band on weekends when the rivers and
coastal waterways are crowded with recreational boaters. In fact so many
recreational boaters use CB that the Coast Guard now routinely monitors CB
channel 9 (the channel reserved for emergency communications).


-67-

allocation is to have staff members rely on written comments from the public,
plus various lobbying pressures and their own professional judgments, to
assess the spectrum "needs" of various radio services. The histories of CB
and GMRS appear to show how difficult it is for this allocation methodology to
assess the public's true desires and legitimate uses for personal radio
frequencies. Not the least of the reasons for the system's drawbacks is that
it can overlook or downplay too easily the latent consumer demand for a new
technology or service.

For example, if consumers do not know about state-of-the-art
communications technologies that might allow highly reliable, confidential,
and low-cost personal radio, then they can hardly be expected to besiege the
Commission with persuasive written comments favorable to a new service
concept. Of course, firms that might profit from sale of equipment for a new
service may (and do) petition the FCC for appropriate rules changes. But such
lobbying campaigns can be expensive, not to mention highly uncertain in
outcome. They often may be distinctly unappealing to firms that cannot afford
high-priced legal talent or that do not have strong patent protection. The
result, once more, can be a systematic regulatory bias against the new,

probably to the detriment of the public. 89/

69/ Historic studies of the innovative process indicate that the sources of
new goods and services are highly unpredictable. Sometimes they come from
large corporations, sometimes from small firms, sometimes from the Tone
"madman." Diversity may be the rule, not the exception. See the classic
study by John Jewkes, David Sawyers, and Richard Stillerman, The Sources of
Invention, 2nd edition (Norton, 1969). A regulatory policy favoring Targe
Firms that can afford expensive Washington lobbying and lawyering obviously
can cut the public off fron otherwise important sources of new products and
ideas, such as small firms and individual inventors.

i



-14-

or family members. When the Commission formally separated regulation of CB
from the other Citizens Radio Services in 1975, it impl icitly acknowl edged
this difference between formal goals and actual uses. 13/ But the Commission
has never given explicit recognition to hobby-like recreational communications
in CB.

The FCC promoted recreational and non-directed use of the Citizens Band
-- probably without intending to do so -- by assigning it spectrum relatively
low in frequency compared to other mobile services. In fact 27-MHz CB
initially had the same content and station-to-station communications
restrictions as GMRS, and many of them persist in GMRS today. But the Tower
frequency assignment allowed less expensive equipment and meant less desirable

propagation and more interference. 14/ the expense and rigidities that

13/ Before 1975, Section 95.83 said: “A Citizens radio station shall not -be
used. . . as a hobby or diversion, i.e., operating the radio station as an
activity in and of itself." In 1975, the Commission el iminated channel
assignments for CB interstation communications and dropped many prohibitions
on the content of communications. These actions were merely an acknowl edgment
of actual operating practices. At this time, one of the authors was employed
by the FCC's Field Bureau and regularly investigated violative CB activity.

In the months immediately after the rule change, he noticed a dramatic

increase in callsign usage and a general decrease in violative (i.e., still
prohibited) activities.

i The 27-MHz band is considered undesirable by many users because of its
susceptibility to, and lack of regulatory protection from, interference. The
interference experienced by users in the band usually takes one of two forms,
both of which reduce the reliablity of communications. One type of
interference canes from the propagation characteristics of the band. While
the band is often only usable for local communications, many times during the
year atmospheric conditions may "open" the band up for medium range (500 to
1000 miles) and long distance (up to 3000 miles and more) communications.
When the band is open, local communications can be disrupted by distant
signals. Second, the 27-MHz band has also been assigned to industrial,
scientific, and medical equipment (ISM, see Part 18 of the FCC rules) that
uses radio energy for other than communications purposes (e.g., welders,
plastic heaters, diathermy machines). Any communications authorized in the
27-MHz band are not guaranteed protection from interference by ISM users.
This additional use of the spectrum makes reliable communications even more
difficult and the frequency range "undesirable." As one result, the private
radio allocations adjacent to CB renained relatively vacant; so as channel
congestion became a problem, some CBers simply took it upon themselves to
expand their band illegally to unoccupied adjacent frequencies.


-31-

regulation can harmonize them for the most part. 33/ But the Commission's
regulation of personal radio has sometimes worked against such objectives.

For example, there has been no provision in the CB rules to allow spectrum-
saving techniques: Even though SSB is allowed at 27 MHz, it saves no spectrum
under present rules due to the uniform national channelization required by the
Commission's rules. Furthermore, data and other non-voice transmissions are
not generally allowed in personal radio, with the limited exception of some
tone-encoded paging, and CBers using technologies like frequency-hopping (a
spread spectrum technique discussed further in Section VIII-A below) have been
shut down at least once by the Commission. As a result of these and other
rules, the 27-MHz service has become crowded and of dubious utility in large
cities, wile underused in many towns and rural areas. 34/° The Comission
currently has outstanding a Notice of Inquiry on the establishment of a new
personal radio service in the 890-960-MHz band, commonly called "900 MHz"
(Docket No 79-140). This band is essentially "virgin territory." It presents
an opportunity to consider new regulatory approaches for 900-MHz personal
radio that could avoid locking up spectrum with technologies that might

otherwise be obsolete in a few years. (See VII-A and VIII bel ow.)

33/ For example, the often-perceived conflict between spectrum efficiency
(i.e., technical efficiency) and economic efficiency is an artificial
condition that arises because our regulatory system does not require
licensees' technical decisions to reflect the costs of failing to put their
assigned channels to the highest valued use (opportunity costs), nor does it
provide them (or allow them to generate) economic signals about the spectrum's
opportunity cost. A discussion is beyond the scope of this paper. But see
Douglas Webbink, "Frequency Spectrum Deregulation Alternatives," Working Paper
No. 2, Office of Plans and Policy, Federal Communications Commission (October
1980), passim and references cited therein.

34/ In some low-density areas, it may be possible that a frequency-hopped 27-
MHz system could provide confidential voice communications in canpetition with
rural telephones and/or the rural radio service.


-13-

that the service cannot provide a significant amount of recreational
communications, due to the nature of its frequency assignments: Users
normally are licensed for only a single channel. This licensing procedure
discourages "partyline" and hobby-like conmunications among stations, since
most persons are licensed to different channels and therefore cannot talk
easily to each other. Without a very large demand for GMRS equipment, such as;
occurred with CB in the early 1970's, prices are unlikely to drop. Yet
equipment demand is not likely to increase without a substantial increase in
the recreational potential of the service. Doubtless, many potential GMRS
users are unaware of the service since it has received almost no publicity.
Because the limited number of users, the limited amount of spectrum, and
relative cost of equipment are so closely interrelated, the main actual use of
GMRS is likely to remain directed communications, although the stated FCC goal
of personal communications actually has been repl aced by business
communications. No significant personal or recreational use is likely to

emerge under current regulations.

2. Citizens Band

In CB the formal FCC goals and the actual uses are at even greater
variance from one another. Commission rules continue to state the purpose of
the service is identical to GMRS. CB‘s actual uses, however, seem primarily
to be hobby-like recreational communications and non-directed highway
communications. That is, people use CB heavily because they enjoy talking
over radios, or need occasionally to talk to a stranger on the highway, not

primarily because they need to send directed messages to business associates


-50-

elimination of licensing would probably require congressional action (see
Section 301 of the Communications Act). The Commission might, however, take a
nunber of intermediate steps that could have the dual advantages of (a)
reducing administrative costs and (b) lightening the regulatory burden on the
citizenry. Among such steps might be one or more of the following: (a)
point-of-sale licensing via retailers; (b) "presumptive" licensing, whereby an
applicant could rely on a certified mail return receipt to establish that the
FCC has acted favorably on a license request without additional documentation;
(c) similar "presumptive" renewal; (d) licensing and/or renewal via an
affidavit before a local notary-public or other oath-taking official; (e) or
simply a “paper" authorization issued by the user to himself similar to the

current temporary CB license.

D. Other Recommendations

In addition to the recanmendations above, we have several other (and less
important) proposals to put the Commission's goals more in line with users'
desires: more flexibility for the 27-MHz CB band; coexistence of amateur and
citizens services at 900 MHz; an expansion of Technican privileges in the
amateur service; full legitimization of hobby communications; and elimination
of several amateur rules we consider meaningless or counterproductive. In all
cases, these changes would be consistent with a general policy of
deregulation, without imposing significant costs upon either the users or the
goverment. The flexibility they introduce would constitute yet another
element in an environment that allows greater use of new technologies, without

actually requiring them.






-68-

It may be too much to ask that regulation take strong affirmative steps
to develop new technologies and other new approaches for personal radio. It
is not, however, too much to ask that regulation simply not stand in the way
of the new. The tack recommended above for personal radio, which is basically
the use of only in-band and out-of-band power emission limits to set the
technical parameters of a new service, is a feasible and appropriate way for
regulation to "stand aside" and let the natural play of technological and
economic factors shape a new personal radio service over a period of years.
This approach probably has much greater promise than do current regulatory
models to harmonize the goals with the regulation of personal radio. And even
if the flexibility we recommend does not lead to the use of important new
technologies for personal radio, it is doubtful that any significant harm

would be inflicted on the public in the process.


-41-

example, they have probably made it more difficult for users to operate their
equipment on unauthorized frequencies or in other interference-causing ways.
Such matters should be carefully weighed as part of any deregulatory

program. On balance however, and relative to the current system, the gains to
users fran a flexible, deregulatory approach like the one recommended here
could far outweigh the potential difficulties. In particular the Commission's
setting mandatory modulation and channel standards for a 900-MHz personal
service might limit user flexibility. Given the speed with which electronics
technologies are advancing today, the geographic and socioeconomic diversity
of the United States, and the political/bureaucratic problems of federal

regulation, a Washington-imposed set of standards would not likely be in the

public interest. AS/

45/ It has been argued that govermment-mandated standards can benefit both
consumers and manufacturers by eliminating uncertainties and allowing everyone
to have compatible equipment fran the beginning, rather than have to wait for
the market to settle on superior technologies and standards. Also it has been
argued that government-mandated standards can sometimes protect consumers fran
the danger that a powerful firm might impose its own standards in order to
create or maintain a monopoly position. However, neither technical
uncertainty nor monopoly is particularly threatening in the 900-MHz context.
Initial 900-MHz licensees will probably use conventional channelized FM, with
“band plans" established by manufacturers or user groups. So standardization
and the attendant economies of scale should be achievable even without an FCC
mandate. And although the absence of mandatory standards has occasionally
resulted in some conflict among users of different types of modulation in both
amateur radio and CB, it seems the "best" modulation schemes by and large have
come to doninate bands in both services. Therefore we conclude that neither
the mere possibility of user conflict nor the absence of formal user
coordination is sufficent justification for FCC-mandated technical

standards. By not specifying modulation, the Commission would allow
techniques other than FM to be used whenever they became cost-effective to
individual users. Moreover, in this type of deregulatory environment, it
seems unlikely that the equipment market could be dominated by one fim.

There seems to be no significant support in serious legal scholarship or
econaic research on monopoly for the “monopoly-via-standards” argument. In
fact, a market without government-mandated standards is likely on balance to
be more conpetitive than a market with such standards.



-65-

surface transportation 64/ and environmental quality. 65/ One of them

explains the matter this way: "Innovative behavior is forward-looking,
whereas legal thinking tends to be conservative. To superimpose the
continuous, orderly, and evolutionary legal perspective upon what must be a
discontinuous and revolutionary process of technological innovation is to
limit technological development in the regulated industries." 66/ tt may be
argued that a certain degree of regulatory bias against "too rapid"
technological change is sometimes socially beneficial, because the public will
fran time to time have legitimate reasons to be wary of the risks inherent in
some new technology. S1/ Obviously such a cosmic issue cannot be explored
adequately in this short paper. But the “risks" inherent in new technologies
for 900-MHz personal radio are probably far too small to warrant anything like
the rigid channelization and modulation standards currently imposed on CB and
GMRS. Amateur radio's comparative lack of regulatory standards is a far

better model to emulate at 900 MHz than are the current CB and GMRS rules --

84/ E.g., Aaron J. Gellman, "Surface Freight Transportation,” in
Technological Change in the Regulated Industries, ed. William M. Capron
(Brookings Institution, 1971), pp. 166-96.

85/ £.9., Robert W. Crandall, “Environmental Protection Agency," Regulation,
Nov./Dec. 1980, pp. 20-21. Cf. Alfred E. Kahn, The Etonomics of Regulation
(John Wiley and Sons, 1971), vol. II, esp. pp. 147-49.

£6/ Geltman, op. cit., p. 196.

67/ Cf. Bruce M. Owen and Ronald Braeutigam, The Regulation Game (Ballinger,
1978), esp. pp. 36-42.




-48-

might choose very narrow bandwidths, say for very slow conventional Morse

code, with very high carrier power.

B. Strengthening the Technical Orientation of the Amateur Service

There are a variety of opinions and explanations of why technical
experimentation may have declined as an amateur radio activity and why the
"han" fraternity may contribute less to the radio art today than before World
War II. FCC regulations may have played a major role, simply by not allowing
new technologies (like spread spectrum modulation so far) or by allowing them
belatedly (as in the case of ASCII). For example, one cannot rule out the
explanation that hams in earlier days built their own equipment, by and large,
out of necessity rather than by choice and that this “environmental"
motivation for technical proficiency simply is now gone. Perhaps most
noteworthy is that no systematic evidence or relatively "hard" data are
available about what actually might motivate amateur licensees to experiment
more than they now commonly do. There are arguments both pro and con on the
FCC's “incentive” licensing structure, but these arguments seem never to have
been analyzed professionally against data on applications, licenses issued, or

50/
education and technical activities of licensees. The time may be ripe for

50/ As mentioned earlier (p- 16, above), limited data suggest that about 40
percent of all amateurs, and over half the Extra Class and Advanced Class
licensees, work professionally in telecommunications or electronics-rel ated
fields. These data suggest that the technical skills "reservoir" of amateur
radio is very large indeed. So the potential probably exists today for much
wider experimentation than one now observes. Unfortunately, no time-series
data are available to allow a comparison of trends since the 1930's or 40's.
But we doubt that the reservoir of technical skills was much higher in the
1930's, relative to the total level of electronics skills throughout the U.S.
economy. (The authors have been told informally that membership data of the
American Radio Relay League -- which is amateur radio's national

association -~ indicated about one-half of the members were employed in

telecommunications in the 30's and 40's. Unfortunately, such data allow no
comparison to the total population of amateurs.)


-21-

radio services. 22/ In this vein, CRS licensees may use only those
transmitters “type accepted" by the FCC.

Since the trivial operator requirements and significant equipment
restrictions in CRS allow free entry to almost anyone, users may end up paying
a penalty in terms of equipment prices and/or channel congestion. In the CB
service, for instance, prospective users need only purchase a communications
transceiver (combination transmitter and receiver), issue themselves a
temporary authorization, plug the equipment in, and attach an antenna to be
"on the air." The equipment, however, must meet fairly stringent out-of-band
emission limits compared to amateur equipment and may use only two modulation
techniques, both for voice and neither of which may be optimum for a

particular place or type of message.

B. Amateur Radio

In contrast to the CRS's open entry, the amateur regulatory structure
limits entry. While there is no minimum age for a license, operating
privileges are granted only upon a demonstration of technical knowlege and
Morse code proficiency. There is a five-level hierarchy in operating

privileges, each level corresponding to a particular class of license.

25/ These technical requirements may include specifications on output power,
frequency stability, frequency coverage (channels), output bandwidth, and
modulation technique. These technical requirements, while perhaps necessary
to contro] interference in many instances, also cause not only higher
equipment costs than might otherwise exist, but in certain cases may lead to
channel congestion due to the lack of flexibility.


-61-

whether and how such repeaters should be licensed or how they should be
regulated and paid for. We believe repeaters should not be restricted in any

way other than limits on total power emitted in-band and out-of-band.

E. "Partyline" Channels and Other Designations

There are some good reasons for dedicating certain channels nationally to
“partyline" uses, highway communications, repeaters, or emergencies. But
there are also negative aspects of channel designation. For one thing,
specifying channels tends to specify the modulation used on those channels and
may in fact specify the modulation for the entire band. It may not be
desirable to freeze technology this way by issuing fiats from Washington,
particularly when needs for various channels may differ across geographic
regions and when electronics technology is subject to rapid advance. Current
Citizens Band users have shown they can select channels for specific uses
adequately by themselves. The same freedan might best be left to 900-MHz

users -- even for emergency channels. §9/ similarly, designation of repeater

channels could be left to user discretion. 60/ User harmony on repeaters
might not develop differently with or without FCC-specified channels. Again,

such specification could tend to Jock the service into technical standards

59/ However, various agencies’ (e.g., the Department of Transportation) or
Jocal governments' (e.g., state highway police) could still recommend specific
channels for particular uses like highway emergencies communications much the
way they do now for CB.

80/ tt might, however, make sense to require some coordination of co-channel
repeater users to control interference.


-22-

Table 2

Amateur Licensing Structure

Class of Technical Morse Code Operating Privileges
License Examination Requirement

(words per minute)

1-8 to 29.7 MHz |Above 50 MHz

Novice perfunctory 5 very limited none
Technician moderate 5 very limited all
General moderate 13 limited all
Advanced difficult 13 most all
Extra difficult 20 all all

The privileges general ly correspond to specific frequencies (and in one case
to power levels and modulation techniques) that may be used. The greater the
operating privileges, the more difficult the level of technical and Morse
proficiency required. For a summary of the amateur license structure, see
Table 2. The rationale for this structure is to provide incentives to upgrade
licenses and thereby raise the overall technical and operational skill levels

of the service. Also, special (i.e., prestigious) call signs are available to



-37-

Commission banned not only commercial traffic per se, but also messages
related to the regular business of charitable institutions like eye banks and
the Red Cross. 33/ this regulation also has been interpreted as preventing
even such “business-rel ated" messages as summoning wreckers via amateur radio
to the scenes of automobile accidents. This restriction works at cross
purposes to the public service goal of amateur radio. It also works to some
extent against the goal of international goodwill, as for example when it
prohibits carrying certain messages for scientific expeditions, missionaries,
and Peace Corps volunteers. 40/ Perhaps worst of all, it is just one more
federal regulation without a good deal of meaning. In short, the stringent
rules against third-party traffic probably lack any important relationship to
congestion in the amateur bands.

Other rules that appear to be counterproductive include (a) the present
requirements on station identification, which appear to prevent efficient use
of packet-switching and similar digital techniques; (b) restrictions on
automatic repeater operations, which limit operations to certain frequencies
(there appears to be no particular reason, for example, to keep repeaters
completely off all HF bands except 29.5 to 29.7 MHz -- again, the blanket
argument about congestion is simply not convincing) and may also inhibit or

prevent such novel technologies as packet switching and "electronic mailboxes”

39/ 37 F.R. 21997 (1972).

40/ But see footnote 56 below.


-10-

communications. Instead, the service is structured to encourage the technical
education of licensees and advancement of the radio art through recreational
communications. Amateur practices have been allowed to evolve naturally along
with the development of technology, rather than be restricted to specific
channels and one or two types of modulation. 9/ At least until World War II,
amateurs were a major force in the exploration of He and higher frequencies --
frequencies that have since provided reliable communications in commercial
applications. In those days, equipment building was for many amateurs perhaps
as important a part of their hobby as actual communications. (One may argue,
however, that much -- perhaps most -- equipment building then was done out of
necessity rather than for fun, simply because mass-production of amateur gear
had not yet arrived.) Today relatively few amateurs build complete stations,
although many construct peripherals and accessories. And some operators
continue to explore innovative canmunications techniques. The rules that .
exist today, however, do far less than they could to encourage amateur

ingenui ty (in spite of the fact that the rules still require both Morse code
and some electronics knowledge); and in some cases, regulation may positively

have discouraged technical progress. 10/

a Initial amateur communications were by primitive means (spark gap
transmitters). As technology advanced, amateur transmission modes changed.
Some of this change was recognized by changes in regulation. Today, amateurs
may communicate by voice, still pictures, TV, Morse code, teletype, and other
modulation types on many different frequency bands. In contrast, CB is much
more restricted. Not only is CB confined to designated "channels," but it

also is allowed only to use voice communications (with only two permissible
modulation types, AM and SSB).

10/ see Section VI-C bel ow.


-40-

and other special privileges. Non-interference and privacy would probably be
the key determinants of such a new service's utility in business
applications. 3B

Good examples of pranising technologies for private, interference- free,
and reliable 900-MHz personal radio are wideband modulation (i.e., spread

spectrum) and trunking. 44/ Current CRS rules preclude these technologies in

CB and GMRS. Both may now be ready for commercial applications in personal
radio, thanks to the possibilities of low-cost integrated circuitry. There
may be no good reason why the two could not co-exist peacefully on any given
frequency band and in the same geographic location, along with other
technologies like one-channel voice or data and conventional two-channel
repeater operations. Therefore serious consideration should be given to a
"deregulatory" type-acceptance program for 900-MHz personal radio that would
specify only (a) out-of-band emission levels and (b) in-band total emitted
energy limits. Of course, the el imination of standards could create at least
a few problens. Mandatory standards, such as those the Commission has

promulgated for CB in the past, may have benefits as well as costs. For

43/ tt has been suggested that without eligibility requiranents (for example,
to exclude business firms), an improved personal radio service might be taken
over by users that value spectrum most highly, perhaps to the exclusion of the
small-scale "personal" users for whom the band was originally established. In
the authors! opinion such a development could be good rather than bad, insofar
as it might indicate an increase in total spectrum efficiency. Nonetheless
the FCC might legitimately wish to make a political decision to "subsidize"
small-scale users and treat 900-MHz personal radio something like a national
park where businesses could not intrude. This issue clearly merits wider
public discussion.

44/ brief introduction to spread spectrum communications can be found in
P. L. Rinaldo, "Spread Spectrum, and the Radio Amateur," QST, Nov. 1980, pp.
15-17. An overview of potential civilian spread spectrum appl ications is
contained in a recent report for the FCC; W. C. Scales, Potential Use of
Spread Spectrum in Non-Government Applications (see footnote 46). In
addition, the Commission is exploring this area in a Notice of Inquiry in
General Docket 81-413, F.R. (1981). An exhaustive technical

examination of spread spectrum is R. C. Dixon, Spread Spectrum Systems (John
Wiley & Sons, 1976).



-49-

careful, systematic analysis (perhaps backed by professional survey research)
of what truly motivates or might motivate licensees to be more technically
oriented. Perhaps the discussion could thereby move from the realm of
opinion, to the realm of fact and analysis. A parallel systematic discussion
and factually-based analysis about how current regulations can be changed to
encourage the flow of new technolcgies into the amateur service would be
useful. Furthermore, a "digital class" or similar amateur license, which
could allow technically competent licensees to operate on VHF amateur bands

$1
without passing Morse code tests may be desirable. Sy

C. Liberalization or Elimination of (B Licensing

The authors are skeptical about the value of the present CB licensing
scheme. The FCC has already undertaken considerable liberalization by

allowing applicants to issue themselves temporary licenses. Complete

51/ The amateur service would probably be enhanced by an influx of computer
hobbyists-- individuals who have both the knowledge and desire to utilize the
amateur bands for technically innovative communications, but who have no
requirement to utilize Morse code. The International Teleconmunications
Union's Radio Regulations, which have treaty status and thus are binding on
the United States, require that amateur licensees know Morse code for
operation below 30 MHz. Code-free licenses are allowed, however, on VHF and
higher. Perhaps two ‘or more code-free license classes above 30 MHz should be
allowed, with higher operating privileges allowed to amateurs who demonstrate
higher levels of technical proficiency. Whether or not such classes are
called "digital" or something else is not important. The Canadian radio
authorities have established a code-free, "digital" amateur license class,
under which some Canadian amateurs participate in a very sophisticated
computer-to-computer trans-Canada radio'network. This system relies on. an
advanced technology called "packet switching" which, to our knowledge, has not
been used in U. S. amateur radio. (See, "DOC Créates New Amateur License
Class," QST, December 1978, p. 61.)




-29-

Citizens Radio Services can partially replace mobile telephones in specialized
areas. In many business-related instances, for example, the GMRS can provide
acceptable, although somewhat less reliable, communications. And for large
groups of friends with canmon interests, CB radio can even be superior to
common carrier communications if access to the telephone network is not
important. But in all these areas, the degree of substitutability is severely

limited by FCC regulations, whether by accident or design.

£. Business Landmobile

As mentioned earlier, some personal radio and business radio services are
close substitutes. Particularly in metropolitan areas, some businesses use
GMRS frequencies rather than the regular landmobile bands because of GMRS's
lower congestion and fewer regulations. In less populated areas, CB is
routinely used in business applications. CB's primary attractions here are
its extremely low licensing and equipment costs when compared to business

Tandmobile.

F. Amateur

Finally, non-amateurs sometimes use VHF amateur bands and equipment
illegally for business communications, in a manner similar to the illegal use
of VHF marine channels for common carrier service. Discussions between the
authors and Field Operations Bureau engineers indicate that this practice is
perhaps increasingly conmon, as business entities risk the costs of
apprehension for the benefits of inexpensive but reliable communications on
the VHF and UHF amateur bands. These unauthorized users are commonly able to

avoid detection by most amateurs (and the FCC) by operating on rarely used


-27-

network. Although the users were violating Commission rules because they were
not qualified for marine channels, legitimate users of the channels in the
area did not complain of any service degradation or interference. In other
words, at least some illegal operators have been able to substitute VHF marine
radio for common carrier services (which are often harder to obtain or more
expensive) without significantly increasing channel congestion and decreasing

other users' communications satisfaction.

C. Rural Radio Telephone Service

In remote locations where the cost of installing and maintaining
telephone wire is high, many individuals rely on radio to contact the outside
world. Often the radio link is authorized by the FCC in the "Rural Radio
Telephone Service," and it is provided by a common carrier. Specific
frequencies are set aside by the Commission for such operation. These systems
are directly connected to a telephone network, and home operation of the
equipment is similar to a standard telephone.

Other isolated communications users -- e.g., domestic and international
scientific expeditions, military deployments, and transoceanic yachts -- have
used amateur radio for primary communications and to connect with the
telephone network. (Since part of the canmunications link is via amateur
radio, however, any communications of a "business" nature are prohibited. In
addition, the reliability of such a link is often much lower than for
commercial circuits.) In some rural areas, CB provides a substitute for rural
radio telephone service. CB is, however, even less reliable technical ly than
amateur links and is forbidden by regulation to connect automatically with the

telephone network. This prohibition on “interconnection” probably leads some


-52-

frequencies allocated to CB. 3/ These steps might result in a mix of users
at 27 MHz that does not currently exist. Most users would continue to be
CBers, but they could be joined by sane hams who might see advantages

Operating in the CB band -- maybe with higher legal power levels or other

privileges not given CB licensees.

2. Coexistence of Anateur and Citizens' Services at 900 MHz

In much the same way that coexistence between amateurs and CBers at 27

53/ The proliferation of CB transmitters after 1973 resulted in a large
increase in the annual number of television interference (TVI) complaints to
the FCC. Perhaps this situation indicates 27-MHz CB not only should not be
expanded, but in fact should eventually be phased out. We do not think the
benefits of reducing TVI by abolishing CB are likely to be worth the costs for
at least two reasons: First, the number of TVI complaints from CB has
levelled in recent years -- possibly an indication tightened type-acceptance
limits are having some effect. Second, the enforcement and other administra-
tive costs in re-allocating the 27-MHz band to a service other than personal
radio would probably be large. But considerable expert opinion both among FCC
staff and on the outside holds that TVI from existing personal radio channels
is still too high. The matter of expanded personal radio causes the analysis
to be even more complex and controversial: In response to a 1979 Commission
directive, the FCC's Private Radio Bureau prepared a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) looking toward expanding the 27-MHz Citizens Band. This
NPRM was discussed in an open Commission meeting on July 1, 1980. The
Commission failed to adopt the proposed NPRM and directed the staff to prepare
a Notice of Inquiry on the subject. Staff opposition to expansion centered on
potentially increased interference to television. At present, little data
exist either to support or dismiss the hypothesis of increased TVI from CB
expansion, although initial FCC analysis indicates the proposed expansion
frequencies are potentially an even greater threat to television reception
than the existing 40 channels. On the other hand, CB expansion as proposed
may not increase actual TVI dramatically. The proposed expansion frequencies
are already utilized iTlegally today by thousands (perhaps tens of thousands)
of operators with relatively high power equipment. Interference will not
necessarily be made worse by authorizing frequencies that already are heavily
utilized, especially if most new users are basically law-abiding operators who
will use type-accepted low-power equipment. However, this decision should
only be made following an in-depth analysis of the television interference
potential.


Preface

We have four main purposes in writing this paper. First, we want to present background
information for readers not well acquainted with personal radio. Second, we want to
encourage readers to go “back to basics" and think through the relationships between
personal radio's goals (implicit and explicit} and its present regulatory regime. We
believe many readers will agree that the regulations are in certain instances not
consistent with the goals. Third, we want to present specific suggestions on regulatory
changes and new technologies that we believe are feasible and may contribute to
achieving personal radio's goals. Our third purpose seems timely in view of the
Com mission's upcoming consideration of a new personal radio service at 900 MHz.
Fourth, and perhaps most important, we want to stimulate comments and provoke

discussion. In no sense are these suggestions meant as the last word on any subject we
discuss.

Until December 1976, the FCC recognized three classes of the “Citizens Radio
Service": Class A, Class C, and Class D. (Class B ceased in 1971.) Then the names were
changed: Class A became GMRS, Class C became R/C, Class D became CB, and the
"Citizens Radio Service" became the "Personal Radio Services" (in the plural). The latter
terms remain offically in force. But the Personal Radio Services (PRS) and the Amateur
Radio Service today are grouped together organizationally under the "Personal Radio
Branch" of the FCC Private Radio Bureau's Rules Division. So sometimes in FCC
discussions, the term "personal radio" refers only to the PRS, while other times it refers
to the PRS plus the Amateur Radio Service. In a attempt to avoid such confusion, we
have used the earlier term "CRS" to refer to GMRS, R/C, and CB; and we use "personal
radio" (in lower case letters) to refer to the collectivity of CRS plus amateur radio. This
terminology also has the advantages of emphasizing (a) that amateur radio licensing is
“personal rather than "service-oriented" and (b) that amateur radio and CRS perform
similar hobby or "recreational" functions for many people. (The text of the paper
generally avoids the terms "Personal Radio Services" and "P RS.")

Particular thanks to Virginia Armstrong, Paul Fox, Phil Gieseler, Ken Gordon, Wendell
Harris, Joe Johnson, Mike Marcus, dim McKinney, Elliott Ours, Peter Pitsch, John Reed,
Dave Sumner, Ron Stone, Doug Webbink, and Perry Williams for helpful com ments. They

do not always agree with us and are, of course, absolved of responsibility for any errors
that remain.

-xi-+


-39-"

than ASCII and Baudot) and sone other digital techniques, since they might
sérve to hide commercial traffic on amateur frequencies. Furthermore, the
Commission has for the time being restricted use of ASCII to certain speeds.
This restriction also simplifies the Commission's monitoring task. So there
is perhaps an inevitable trade-off between enforcement and technological

innovation.

VII. Recommendations

A. Permitting New Technologies for (RS

The FCC is now considering the establishment of a new personal radio
service at 900 MHz (Docket 79-140). Several new technologies that are
feasible at 900 MHz may offer opportunities to create novel types of personal
radio communications with (a) good security from malicious interference, (b)
reasonable degrees of privacy, and (c) efficient spectrum use. Moreover, such
characteristics could give a new service marked utility in all sorts of
business applications as well as in strictly personal communications.
Therefore the technologies discussed below have the potential to weaken many
present distinctions among personal, business, industrial, govermmental, and
similar categories. Such a weakening might justify a fairly generous spectrun
allocation to an improved personal radio service. That is, if prospective
business licensees could obtain reliable and private communications services
with low-priced "mass market" equipment on 900-MHz personal radio frequencies,

they would probably see a correspondingly smaller need for dedicated channels


-45-

not interfere with, other transmissions on a shared band. It should be
emphasized that trunking, repeater use, and other channelized forms of
communications can still evolve orderly in the absence of Commission

standards, as evidenced by the history of the amateur service.

3. The Personal Radio "Black Bcx"

A set of personal radio rules for 900 MHz that specified only out-of-
band emission levels and in-band limits on total power emitted (or spectral
power-density limits) without regard to bandwidth, channelization, or
modulation techniques would allow manufacturers to sell modular "black box"
transceivers capable of accepting a variety of baseband signal inputs (voice,
video, data) and modulation techniques. Compatible modulation/demodul ation
units cculd be sold separately. For example, computer hobbyists wishing to
communicate with one another via a radio-based electronic mail systen could
simply go to a local electronics franchise outlet, buy a black box plus an
appropriate digital modulator/demodulator, take the equi pment home, and be on
the air quickly after only plugging in a home computer and antenna. Other
people could buy the same model of black box, plug in a voice modulator/de-
modulator, and use the identical personal radio band for partyline chitchat
and/or directed messages. Still others could use the black boxes plus video
equipment for neighborhood tel evision broadcasting. Any of these people could
switch their black boxes among several uses merely by plugging in different
modulator/demodulator units. This scenario probably can use today's state of
the art, not "blue-sky" technology. _ Comme re ial applications could develop

within a few years, at moderate costs to consumers, if the FCC's rules would


I. Introduction

Personal radio, as the Federal Communications Commission usually has
regulated it, encompasses a large group of stations licensed without regard to
the lines of business of the licensees. With a few minor exceptions, this
distinction sets personal radio apart from broadcasting, common carriers, and
various government, business, aviation, and marine radio services.
Furthermore, within personal radio there has been an implicit regulatory
distinction between the purely hobby-oriented or "recreational" purposes of
amateur radio, where radio communication is basically an end in itself, and
the Citizens Radio Services, where radio communications were originally
intended by the FCC to convey specific, directed business and personal
messages. Y

We think the only defect in this conceptual framework is that it fails to
recognize explicitly the recreational aspects of either amateur radio or the
Citizens Radio Services. People desire recreation and hobbies in much the
same way they want, say, apples or oranges or any other consumer good. So

devoting some portion of the radio spectrum to recreation, much the way some

i In emphasizing the recreational nature of anateur radio, with
communications as an end in itself, we do not mean to downplay the importance
of technical experimentation, disaster communications, other public service,
and international goodwill in amateur radio. But we feel strongly that most
amateur licensees invest their time and money in their hobby (often in very
considerable amounts) above all because they derive a great pleasure simply
from canmunicating by radio. It is this element that draws amateurs together
and has distinguished then fron other users of the radio spectrum. It is
probably significant that in many other countries (e.g., the Soviet Union,
which has the world's third largest amateur radio population after Japan and
the USA), amateur radio is known by terms like “radiosport." That is, there
is a clear emphasis on the recreational (as opposed to the technical and
public service) aspects of amateur radio in perhaps most foreign countries.


Deregul ating Personal and
Amateur Radio*

Alex D. Felker
James A. Brown, Jr.

Working Paper No. 6

Office of Plans and Policy
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

August 1981

* The opinions expressed in this paper are the authors’. They do not
necessarily reflect the policies or views of the Federal Communications
Commission or any other organization or individual.


-20-

IV. Regulatory Characteristics

Because the FCC established the citizens and anateur services to meet
different communications demands, the two services have radically different
regulatory structures. These differing structures were designed with the
intent of pranoting the expressed goals of each service, while simultaneously
limiting interference both within services and to other services. The

following section summarizes these structures.

A. The Citizens Radio Services

As noted earlier (Section II1), a minimum age is the only significant
qualification for a license in the Citizens Radio Services. In fact, aliens
are now eligible (except representatives of foreign governments). So in
effect the only requirement for a license is simply to apply. One need not
even wait for the Commission to act before operating, since applicants may
give themselves temporary authorizations.

Licensees are not required to have technical knowledge of canmunications
equipment in any service except the amateur. Therefore, they are not
necessarily able to recognize and control the interference to other radio
users that their own equipment may generate. So the Commission places various

different technical requiranents on transmitters it authorizes for specific


~62-

that may not remain efficient as the state of the radio art and user demands

evolve over a period of years.

F. Other Government-Mandated Standards

There may be legitimate reasons to impose government-mandated standards
for a new personal radio service such as calling protocols, modulation,
bandwidth, and the like. However, any advantages of such standards may be
outweighed by the rigidities of the current federal regulatory process,
especially given today's rapidly advancing el ectronics technology. 61/

Voluntary government technical standards, however, should not cause any ham.

G. Congestion

An improved personal radio service might only have congestion comparable
to what now occurs in conventional landmobile and 27-MHz CB. But another
possibility is that the main benefits of an improved personal radio service -~
its privacy, versatility, and reliability -- would encourage people to use it
much more than they might use an inferior system. So its success might
generate much higher congestion levels. Some people might interpret this
prediction as an argument against a technically sophisticated personal radio
service. Such an argument would be strained. The probable success of an
approach ought to be grounds for supporting it rather than opposing it. In
fact, the threat of congestion in an improved personal radio service can be an

argument for pushing the concept even harder and for giving it even more

61/ one should note that much of today's regulatory rigidity comes straight
fron the Administrative Procedure Act (£ U.S.C. 551 et. seq-), not from the
FCC itself. Congressional action is required, therefore, to correct at least
some of the current problems.


1. The General Mobile Radio Service

GMRS has eight channel pairs in the UHF spectrum and is used
primarily for low cost, business-related local communications. These channels
are not allocated specifically for business, but in most urban areas they have
become excellent substitutes for business landmobile frequencies. In some
ways these frequencies are more desirable than the business-only frequencies,
because GMRS is not as rigidly regulated as are other private radio
services. For example, FCC rules permit business users to discuss non
business personal matters on GMRS frequencies, and they may share facilities

with personal users and almost any mixture of licensees from other lines of

business.

2. The Radio Control Service

The second sub-group in the CRS is the Radio Control Service (R/C),
which is assigned a total of thirteen channels in the HF and VHF portions of
the spectrum. The six HF allocations are interspersed with the Citizens Band
(CB) channels and although these channels are often occupied with interfering
and unauthorized voice communications, they are also utilized by radio control
enthusiasts. The R/C channels may be used for controlling remote devices such
as model airplanes, garage doors, and pocket pagers. In addition, with some
restrictions, the seven VHF channels allocated to the R/C service can be used

for licensed personal radio remote control and signalling. 6/

§/ The operation of transmitters for controlling objects remotely is also
permitted on amateur frequencies.




~32-

B. CRS Goals

As noted above (Section III-A), the official FCC goal of CB and GMRS is
directed, short-distance, low-cost communications for both personal and
business uses. Although promulgated to avoid potential congestion, some CB
and GMRS regulations hinder achievement of this goal. For example, telephone
interconnection in the CB service must be performed by someone at a base
station; it may not be automatic. Interconnection is forbidden altogether in’
GMRS. Such restrictions limit the utility of CB and GMRS as low-cost personal
communications and therefore run counter to the main goal of the two
services. Proponents of interconnection restrictions say they reduce usage
demand, especially for long conversations, and therefore reduce the congestion
on these frequencies. This line of argument is perverse, however, because it
condemns a technique on the grounds that it improves service. That is, users
would view interconnection as a quality improvement for the service, so they
want to use the service more. Normally one condemns rules that reduce service
quality, not activities that improve it. If quality-improving innovations
cause secondary effects like more congestion, it is probably best to look even
more diligently for alternatives to deal with the congestion -- more
frequencies, new technologies, or eventual ceilings on the number of licenses
issued for operation in congested metropolitan areas -- rather than look for
conscious means to hold down service quality. (In any event, congestion on CB
and GMRS frequencies may now be so high in large urban areas that inter-
connection might not have a greatly noticeable effect.)

Another example of “anti-quality" bias is the rule on station identifica

tion. CB stations are required to "ID" at the end of each transmission even


. 71 6-

distinction can be viewed as a social contract, with international treaty
status, between amateur operators (or "hams") and their goverrments. In this
country, FCC rules establish a recreational communications structure for
amateur operators with five basic goals: (a) public service communications,
especially during emergencies, (b) advancement of the "radio art," (c)
improvement of individuals' operating and technical skills, (d) expansion of
the national "reservoir" of radio operators and electronics experts, and (e)
international goodwill. 17/ These five areas are the formal goals for the
amateur service. But what motivates the licensees themselves?

First, many individuals are attracted to amateur radio mainly because
they have a hobby interest in the technical side of radio electronics.
Indeed, the technical orientation has a long and important history in the

amateur service. For example, most of the HF spectrum in commercial use today

was first explored by amateurs before World War II. 18/ Some evidence

suggests about forty percent of today's amateurs are employed professionally

in fields related to electronics or telecanmunications. 19/ Also, the

17/ These goals have been established entirely by tradition and regulations,
not by statute. The only statutory requirement for the U.S. amateur service
is the definition of “amateur station" in Section 3(q) of the Communications
Act of 1934: "A radio station operated by a duly authorized person interested
in radio techniques solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary
interest." The formal statement of the Commission's goals for the amateur
service is in Part 97.1 of the FCC Rules.

18/ On the other hand, the FCC's regulations did not explicitly recognize
technical advance as a goal of the amateur service until the 1950's. Most
other countries even today do not make such an explicit recognition, although
the International Telecanmunications Union's definition of amateurs includes
the phrase "technical investigator."

419/ £, Walter Terrie, “Amateur Radio in the United States and Canada, 1980,"

Final Report to the ARRL, Florida State University, Institute for Social
Research, September 1980.


-25-

low-power transmitting devices must be certificated. 29/ Many low-power
devices for recreation or radio control use frequencies in either the

26.99-to-27.26-MHz band (which also includes some CB channels) or 49.82 to
49.90 MHz. 30/

8B. VHF Marine

Marine radiocommunications frequencies are reserved in the medium
frequency (MF), the high frequency (HF), and the very high frequency (VHF)
ranges. Certain channels are for public correspondence (third party message
traffic or telephone calls), while other channels are for calling
(establishing communications between stations), emergency traffic, and radio
determination (establishing positions by "direction finding" a radio
beacon). The rules specifically prohibit use of marine frequencies for
superfluous (e.g., "partyline") communications or for communications not

directed to specific stations or ships. The rules are intended to provide

29/ Certification is a Commission equipment licensing program, where
technical compliance is determined fron manufacturer-submitted measurements.
It is less rigorous than "type approval ," which requires that equipment be
tested in the FCC laboratory.

30/ Up until 1976, the 27-MHz band was the most popular spectrum for
recreational low-power devices. Then the Commission, responding to increasing
numbers of complaints fran CB operators, established the 49-MHz band. This
band has since been used primarily by inexpensive “walkie-talkies" and
wireless telephones. The 1976 Commission action also instituted a timetable
that will in 1983 prohibit the low-power use of the 27-MHz R/C frequencies for
any type of voice or continuous wave (CW) modulation. This last action
effectively limited the low-power use of 27 MHz to remote control. Since the
authorized frequencies in the 27-MHz band for low-powered, remote control
transmitters are identical to the frequencies authorized for the R/C service
in the 27-MHz band, in many instances this low-powered unlicensed service can
provide a perfect substitute for the 27-MHz R/C service, the only difference
being that the R/C service is allowed higher power. In a similar manner, the
49-MHz band provides a communications substitute to some 27-MHz CB uses. In
particular, inexpensive 49 MHz walkie-talkies are being substituted for more
expensive 27-MHz units for very short-distance, portable communications. See
41 F.R. 7398 (1976).


-il-

Ill. The Goals of Personal Radio

The FCC originally tried to specify in detail the way various branches of
citizens radio would be used. But the actual uses, as distinguished from the
FCC's original goals, have evolved over time as a result of socio-economic
factors, new technologies, amounts of spectrum assigned, interference, and so
forth. So it is important to contrast the Commission's original (and current)
formal goals with the services’ actual uses. In most cases, the latter have

gained at least quasi-legitimacy and thereby take on the characteristics of

infornal goals.

A. The Citizens Radio Services

The Commission's original rules and practices for both GMRS and CB were
intended to allow short-distance, low-cost directed communications (both
mobile and point-to-point) for the business or personal activities of
individual licensees. Moreover, the rules established these services so that
radio would be an aid to other activities rather than an activity in and of
itself. Regulations, socioeconomic demands, and technological changes over
the past several years have, however, led to a significant difference between
the original formal goals and the current actual use of the CRS. The most
important actual use today for GMRS appears to be business communications for
firms rather than individuals, and the most important actual uses today for CB

are non-directed highway conmunications and hobby-like communications. lv

iy There are, of course, some non-business communications in the GMRS; and a
few GMRS comaunity repeaters are now even operated similarly to CB. Such
operations appear to have increased recently. This trend is unlikely to
change the dominant business-related mode of GMRS operations in the
foreseeable future.


SPECTRUM DIAGRAM

400

kilohertz 300

MEDIUM FREQUENCIES [MF]

° ——_] ad sepey
8 — arrow puet 3 8 anqoW PUuET 2 3 euuergs 3
mL snereuly 12 40 pextd
“one OT aremuous | . aneyewy
endow pur one anayewly
7 ayIqow puey
UOHeRIA
ouneln inaleuny yseopeag g
— R— tone 8— 1-2 vo) AL pexiy
& on pk ‘eneMUOUS, 40D
omponeny eure agen pus
auueW uonenAy auue ~ uoneny
|—— SAGMUOUS @1IGOW pueT
& uoneny &
sneyewy aneyeuly snayewy
H o
3 euueWn
5 aKemUOUS uoneAy H
uonely
3 E yseopeqig o 3 5
¥3 8 @ anemuous a 8 Wa 3 pexid €
£3 uoneln yseopeolg 3—
ae 3— sue. 8 (9-5 UO) AL 3 S1a0W pueT
Ee 8 HQ; puey 3—_ eiqd0w per . 3-—J
—_] E ~ 8 snlewy e uarey 38——+4
4 | 3 v e nel 8
8 ° 3 AY ~ yseopeoa sseopeoig
| 8 8 ouew 3 3 (2 UO) AL © 3 (e8-71-UO) AL
aneyew
yeu © 3 enq0W puey
g 8 anqoW pueT z 3 ° | onaow ue
uoneiy 2 i “Sano.
—_— | 3 —
ULE 3 g eupen @ e— Es E g——] mores
| 8 e anayewy 3 a 3 © 1005
vonewy [| __g | __-3 ° uonerny
eUUeW ° 8
won [—B 8 2 8 2 8
- c c
$ = $ 5 g S 2 22 S
oe ny es 3 25 re 2
sg Us gs 8s ss wf 3
ge 9 ge 68 3 oF g
gs 3 ge 3 ze Ze 3
Ss gF ss Se Zz
> g 3
g 3 3
4 4 id
. ir “
z= x=
gS G g
= z =
c
é 5
> 5

10

“ix-

60

70

in centimeters 100 90 80


-47-

these limits to transmitter output carrier power. With this scheme,
individual users would be free to choose -- and change -- whatever medul ation
types best fit their communications purposes and environments, without
increasing the amount of interfering RF energy in the frequency band. The
regulations could require any emission's spectral power (as might be observed
on a spectrum analyzer) to be no greater than some constant when integrated
over the entire band and over some time period. The comments on the
Commission's 900-MHz personal radio NOI (Docket 79-140) suggested transmitter
powers as high as 100 watts FM, but they clustered around 25 watts. Therefore
we suggest a type-acceptance criterion equivalent to the amount of RF emitted
by a 26 watt FM transmitter. 49/  Qut-of-band limits could use essentially
today's -60dB criterion, so that each out-of-band emission could be no more
than 2.5x10-5 watts. Such regulations would allow manufacturers and licensees
not only the options of choosing spread spectrum and other non-FM or non-voice
modulation techniques, but also the option of very high power digital signals
of many very short "bursts," interspersed with blank spaces, per second -- as

long as the total energy per second fell within the specified limits. Or they

ns

48/ The total average power of an FM signal is independent of modulation
index. See F. G. Stemler, Introduction to Communications (Addison-Wesley,
1977), pp. 283-284. Therefore it makes no difference whether a transmitter
uses a 16F3 reference signal at 2£ watts or some other F3 bandwidth at 25
watts. The larger the modulation index (i.e., the wider the occupied
bandwidth of an FM signal), however, the greater the demodulated signal-to-
noise ratio for a given carrier-to-noise ratio. This phenomenon is referred
to as the “FM improvement factor." The improvement factor could provide
incentives for users to utilize extremely wideband FM which might result in a
very inefficient use of a particular band. But there is a potential offsett
FM also exhibits a characteristic known as "capture" effect, which results in
an FM receiver's “locking in" on the strongest signal in its IF passband. The
capture effect would provide users incentives to utilize narrow IF passbands
and, consequently, narrow transmitted bandwidths. One area to consider when
analyzing the merits of this type-acceptance criterion is how the distribution
of in-band energy may affect the response of out-of-band receivers. For
instance, signals with very fast rise times that have been band-limited at RF
to meet the out-of-band emission limit may still cause interference to out-of-
band users whose receiver was not designed to reject signals of this type.



-63-

spectrum and technical flexibility than originally contemplated. If such a
system became overly congested in a few large cities (New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago), it might nonetheless remain highly usable in most of the rest of the
country. Moreover, the Commission could retain the option of eventually
limiting the number of licenses issued for operation in congested metropolitan
areas. In addition, the "graceful degradation" characteristics of spread-

spectrum modulation might obsolete sone conventional thinking about

congestion. 62/

But we urge further study, well-defined and tightly focussed,

in this general topic area.

H. Automatic Transmitter Identification

An Automatic Transmitter Identification System (ATIS) could be beneficial
to the community of personal radio users at large, as a means of spotting
illegal operators and malicious interference creators as well as for
identifying stolen equipment and for billing the use of commercial
repeaters. A mandatory ATIS may not be desirable. On the other hand, it

might be worthwhile to establish some type of voluntary ATIS standard. The

82/ Conventional thinking about spectrum congestion definitely has undergone
some dramatic changes over the years. For example, in 1924, Secretary of
Commerce Herbert Hoover (generally considered the "father" of the type of
radio regulation that was established for the FCC and its predecessor by the
1927 and 1934 acts) clearly could not imagine widespread amateur radio
telephone. And something like CB was even farther from his imagination, as
shown by the following statement he made to Congress: "Tel ephone
communication [via radio] . . . is impossible between individuals from the
point of view of public interest as there are a very limited number of wave
lengths which can be applied for this purpose and the greater usefulness of
the available wave bands for broadcasting communications inhibits their use
for personal communication." Hearings before the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, House of Representatives . . . on H.R. 7357, 68th Congress, ist
Session (1924), p. 8 Yet telephony has been the primary mode of amateur
conmunications at least since World War II, and CB and GMRS have always used
telephony exclusively.



-33-

though, as a practical matter, the rule is virtually unenforceable (and
probably ignored by a majority of licensees). This rule alone appears to
prevent Commission type-acceptance of frequency-hopping 27-MHz equipment ; and
the implicit prohibition of digital CB transmissions probably rules out
efficient trunking systems. 38/ Existing hardware could probably be adapted
quickly and economically to provide hopping or trunking capabilities in 27-MHz
equipment, with perhaps significant quality benefits to CB operators jn many
(relatively non-congested) areas of the country. Absent some of the current
rules, market forces might well lead in a few years to commercial equipment
with such features. The benefits, measured against the goal of low-cost
personal cannunications, could be substantial.

At a more general level, the Commission's service-oriented spectrum
allocation approach is also sometimes at odds with the goal of low-cost
personal communications, especially given the possibilities opened by today's
technologies. The Commission's basic approach has been to allocate different
amounts of spectrum to different services -- private landmobile, common
carrier landmobile, personal, broadcasting, private fixed, common carrier
fixed, and so forth -- as determined largely by two factors: (a) inter-
national treaty obligations and (b) the Commission staff's perception, as

influenced by public comment, interest group lobbying, and congressional

35/ Frequency hopping and trunking are explained below in Section VII-A. The
rules do not specifically say digital transmissions are illegal, but they
authorize only AM and SSB voice transmissions. In addition to facilitating
trunking, the legalization of digital transmission could be linked with an
ATIS system (see Section VIII-H below) and perhaps make ID requirements not
only enforceble, but also useful in locating illegal interference.


-35-

not allow people in Nevada to have such a service if there were potentially
serious congestion problems associated with its use in New York. Moreover, a
new application of technology along these lines might not fit neatly into any
of the current definitions of personal radio, radio common carriers, or fixed
services, so that its proponents might not fare well competitively before the
FCC in seeking spectrum. We make three tentative conclusions: (1) A system
like this might same day offer benefits to consumers on the order of billions
of dollars annually, including benefits in terms of user flexibility and wider
consumer choice. (2) It ought not make a difference whether a service like
this is called "personal radio" or "“conmon carrier," or whether it uses
personal radio frequencies, common carrier frequencies, or sone mixture of

then. And (3) such a systen may be quite unlikely, as long as the current

service-oriented approach dominates spectrum allocation. 37/

As noted above, recreational uses have never been officially or
explicitly recognized by the Commission as goals for CB radio. Yet they have
becone de facto equal to CB's officially recognized “communications” goal both
in the public's (licensees') mind and in the Commission's actual regulatory
practices. Realistic policymaking should not ignore it. Among the CB rules
that prevent full recreational use of these channels are the prohibitions on
(a) canmunications beyond 250 kilometers, (b) canmunications with foreign

stations, 38/ (c) music and one-way and other broadcast-like transmissions,

3u/ Service-oriented eligibility requirenents often prevent spectrum from
being put to its most valuable uses across the board, not just in areas like
personal and landmobile radio.

38/ The FCC does not currently have clear legal authority to permit
widespread international communications in the CRS, due to prohibitions in the
existing international regulations (which have treaty status).