News
FCC plans to enforce UHF/VHF narrowbanding mandate
With a little more than four months left until LMR systems operating on frequencies below 512 MHz are required to migrate from 25 kHz channels to 12.5 kHz channels under the FCC’s narrowbanding rules, licensees should be prepared for enforcement consequences if they do not meet their obligations or secure a waiver from the agency, a commission official said last week.
“In the past year, we’ve seen a lot of progress, as many licensees have migrated their systems to narrowband operations—this has been very gratifying,” David Furth, deputy chief of the FCC’s public safety and homeland security bureau, said during a session at the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO) conference last week. “But we still have thousands of public-safety licensees who are operating in wideband mode, and time is short.
“Let me reiterate what the commission has said all along: We are not moving the narrowbanding deadline. It is, and will be, Jan. 1, 2013.”
Furth said affected licensees have two choices to remain in compliance: make the transition to narrowband technology or get a waiver from the FCC. The commission has detailed the conditions for waiver approval, one of which takes into account when a waiver application is filed, Furth said.
“In order to obtain a waiver, you need to make a timely request—that means now, if you have not filed a waiver,” he said. “I cannot overemphasize that waiver requests that are filed at the 11th hour before the deadline will be viewed with skepticism and are very likely not to be granted.”
Affected licensees that fail to narrowband and do not obtain a waiver will suffer consequences, Furth said.
“Will the commission enforce its rules? The answer is emphatically, ‘Yes,’” he said. “We are already working with the FCC’s enforcement bureau to prepare for 2013, and the enforcement bureau plans to issue guidance soon, reminding licensees of their narrowbanding obligations and of the commission’s intent to aggressively enforce the narrowband mandate.
“It is important to get the word out to your friends and neighbors to make sure that everyone is taking this obligation seriously. This is serious.”
Well the FCC is definately
Well the FCC is definately barking but will they bite? There will be a lot of agencies that will not make it due to finances. I don’t think the FCC has the manpower that will be needed.
Well the fcc fees will kill
Well the fcc fees will kill them if the narrowbanding doesnt. The FCC doesnt answer to anyone on that issue, so they set very fees not to the actual costs they incur (nearly nothing) but to the point where people say this isnt worth it. We are left with many abandoning their 2 way systems, for cellphones.
Take a look at the performance of 2 way vs cell systems without power or dead networks.
The FCC will enforce this
The FCC will enforce this one, and with great alacrity, as it indirectly affects their own funding. Our grand and glorious government is all about the money, but (as usual) cloaks that “need” in some cause or “charitable” purpose. This is no different.
Our state agency began
Our state agency began narrowbanding its system, 10 years ago and have been totally narrowband since 2004 or 2005. I’ve never been able to understand why so many others have been unable to do this, other than through lack of planning. I, personally, am behind the FCC on this one.
As for the comment about the Phase Two transition…the FCC has yet to come up with a hard date for that. Until that happens, I’m not going to give it much thought. I expect that we will get enough advance notice to build an adequate plan, before the next deadline.
Yes, I too was originally of the thought that maybe we should all just thumb our noses at the FCC on this entire narrowbanding issue. However, history shows that this kind of reaction has never worked, so why even consider it?
One good thing about being in
One good thing about being in the radio business for 38+ years is that I can remember technology and details that the glut of “computerized radiomen” never heard of. I have observed the perception that the lower the bandwidth the worse the recovered audio. There are many common complaints about the quality of recovered audio from 12.5 KHz digital bandwidth now as compared to conventional wideband FM audio at +/- 5 KHz deviation. (I can remember when wideband was +/- 15 KHz and narrow band was +/- 5 KHz). It is anticipated the quality of recovered audio from +/- 6.25 KHz digital audio will be worse. Yes, there have been many improvements now than when P25 was first initiated and it is much better than it used to be. Never the less, the perception is still there. Does anybody else remember ACSB, Amplitude Combanded Side Band? The common perception is that ACSB was killed by the FM manufacturers. ACSB offered a channel spacing of 3 KHz with audio equal to that of +/- 5 KHz analog FM. This is half of the bandwidth of +/- 6.25 KHz digital with superior recovered audio. True, there would be no imbedded signaling, but, conventional MDC and other ID signalling could be used. An advantage would be that all of the conventional analog voting systems and leased line connectivity would not need to be replaced. This is a significant cost savings. Also, battery life will be extended. No routers or networking would be required. That would make an old time radio man happy.
W. Rick Duel PE “Radio Rick” W9XB KCTJ
I think your mention of SSB
I think your mention of SSB technology is really something that needs to be explored if the FCC goes ahead with trying to get everyone to 6.25 KHz bandwidth. Since one cannot achieve this bandwidth with conventional FM technology by just reducing deviation, the choice are to go digital or to go to an analog technoly like SSB. Digital has been a real non-starter here in Montana. The coverage is just workable. SSB could give the coverage of analog with the very narrowband emission. Problem is, there has been so much money spent on going to 12.5 that any attempt to go to anything else in the next 20 years is going to raise the roof!
I’m in the DC area and I
I’m in the DC area and I figure 1/2 of biz band users are unlicensed
Specifically police agencies
Specifically police agencies need to realize that the use of a radio that is illegal to use could have serious legal ramifications in court. The use of an illegal device (non-narrow band radio system without an STA) could result in the lost of a conviction if the criminial has a good lawyer.
Narrow band has been around
Narrow band has been around for nearly 20 years. 20 yrs is more than the life expectincty for most radios. If the TV trasition never happened, we would still not have the additional space which we need. Do the paperwork, turn down the deviation and get new equipment. Enforcement may the only way to get things moving and get money into the treasury. Forget the excuses. Forget waivers. Frankly speaking, lets get going! NOW !!!
Any one who says they were
Any one who says they were “unaware” of this has either been asleep or “stoned” for the last 15 years. That especially includes police departments. I also am with the FCC on this one and I am a liscenced FCC technician. I have Police Chiefs asking me, “We’re a police department, what are they going to do to us?” My responce to them is simply “What do you say to any federal officer who shows up and starts asking you questions?” First, be nice, second is be cooperative. An FCC inforcement officer has the same authority as an FBI agent, DEA, ATF or US marshal and you are in violation of federal law! Sometimes, they just don’t get it! It’s like a lot of people think they can load Windows operating system with the same lisense on to as many computers as they want and that is perfectly legal – WRONG! As long as you do not mind paying the $16,000.00 per radio per day up to $112.500.00 first time fine, do what ever you want but as your officers would tell someone going 100mph in a 25mph zone who said “I didn’t see the sign” – IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE!!!! Live within the law or be an outlaw!