I have a little bit of experience in this arena; I was a grassroots
lobbyist in the effort to repeal the 55 MPH speed limit (don't forget that
it took TWENTY YEARS to undo the damage!). My take on HR1964 is that the
scanner hobby is in very, very serious trouble. To wit:

1) As standalone legislation, it is appealing because it gives a new
"protection" to commerce without subtracting from any other discernable
commercial interest. (Sorry, folks... on a national scale, scanning is
simply not a recognizable blip on the scope.)

2) The potential for negative press while trying to defend our position is
great. It is very hard to justify "the right to eavesdrop", which is how
scanner listening is portrayed by our detractors. The "RF is a public
resource" defense is considered by lawmakers as too broad and intangible.

3) Scanner listeners have no organized representation. We learned a hard
lesson by sitting back and letting egocentrics like Tom Kneitel and Bob
Grove speak for the hobby. On the other hand, who else could?

3a) We have a lot of bad press to undo. :-(

4) As noted in that forwarded posting, the commenter observed that the
definitions are broad enough to encompass practically all possible business
band frequencies. There are four very significant problems:

  a) What denotes "business"? Is an ambulance/paramedic/EMS service a
     "business" even if it's a city contractor?;

  b) Given the broadest definition, practically 90% of popular scanner 
     coverage would be deleted;

  c) Under spectrum refarming, the line between shared business systems
     and shared public safety systems would be blurred beyond any
     ability to define it by rule;

  d) The "prohibited frequency list" would be a constantly moving target.
     Type acceptance would essentially be impossible.

5) Hobbies and enthusiast interests have generally not done well when faced
with legislation which - by design or accident - impacts hobbyist
activities.

Recent example is the flurry of laws which creates incentive for industrial
polluters to buy old cars (supposedly big pollution sources) to compensate
for their own failure to comply. These laws dictate that mechanical
components *must* be destroyed. Antique and classic car hobbyists have
suddenly found their supply of restoration parts essentially gone.

6) In terms of the whether the legislation will get due consideration and
maybe even pass, consider the legislative history of the cellular frequency
ban. It was up and down over several months, then, in the end, was attached
as a "rider" to a very important communications funding bill that was
guaranteed to pass. In the months before it was attached as a rider, the
bill disappeared from sight, and we thought it was gone - then it suddenly
appeared less than a week before the funding bill was scheduled for vote.
There was no time to act, much less get the word out. Expect a similar
strategy this time around.


Frankly, my approach is two-fold: first, a letter to my Representative is
in order, although in my case it is a waste of time because my particular
Congressman is a business-interests-above-all-else sleazebag.

Second, and most important, is to muster support from the ARRL. I have
already exchanged e-mail with their legislative department. It is important
that they understand that the ham radio equipment business is a "world
market". The manufacturers have been forced to build separate models of
everything to meet the strict US rules. So less equipment is available to
US hams, and we get new models 6-12 months later than everyone else.

We do need to rally over this one, making special efforts to express our
concerns in a sound, rational manner. Flaming and "you jerks" won't cut
it.- From a posting on Compuserves HamNet.