I think the right thing is to support this amendment but the conditions for these professional licensees need to be worked out.
We know that few if any of these professionals will have any interest in amateur radio. For that reason FCC should demand a certain level of training and maintenance of their general radio operation skills. The last thing we need in an eventual disaster is is a bunch of people yapping on a radio they can not operate sufficiently. Beside general ham operations, like checking into nets, they should every year have to pass a test that they actually are proficient in operating their equipment, trouble shoot and make adjustments to get the most out of their equipment.
So I think at least 4 hour general ham operation a week should be demanded, monitored by FCC, and since we are talking about professionals here, they should pay for their license, and pay enough to cover special FCC inspectors to monitor that they are actually following the special regulations.

This again should be monitored by FCC, financed with special license fee.
I would think that each license should cost in the range of $300/year.

We are talking about that these people are supposed to provide professional service in a possible disaster/emergency so they better be prepared.....

I'm grateful for the time and effort you are putting into this.

With kind regards,

- Mark Rice, KK5MR

Our county devotes approximately 1.5 million of Homeland Security grant funds annually towards improving interoperable communications each year, with the ultimate goal of full implementation of a 32 million dollar master communications plan. In addition, the Emergency Medical Services Agency recently implemented a 500K upgrade to a 30 year old Medical Network communications system, designed for field paramedic to hospital communications. Other healthcare communications are provided through two web based applications known as EMSystem and the California Health Alert Network (CAHAN). Regardless of how much money is spent of the latest communications technology all these systems are vulnerable and can fail during a disaster.

The horror stories from hospitals devastated by Hurricane Katrina is all the proof anyone in the country needs. Many hospitals were 100% on there own for days without communications, running water, and other utilities. No law enforcement, fire, or EMS assistance from the government. All they had were the staff on duty at the time of the disaster. One of the lessons learned from this event should make it very clear to anyone who is responsible for the safety of patients, visitors, or staff of any hospital anywhere in the United States, is all public safety and communications infrastructure can fail. Hospital staff must be self sufficient at times of disaster, including achieving and maintaining a level of operational competency with the use of amateur radio. This level of preparedness cannot be achieved without routine training, practice and testing, which is currently illegal.

97.113 impedes the ability of hospitals in the United States from achieving an acceptable level of disaster preparedness. Think about it, you could be the next person left to die in an unprepared hospital. Amateur radio is intended to be used when all else fails; however it won’t work unless the microphone is in the hands of a trained operator. Let’s work together to make sure that a repeat of Hurricane Katina type failures doesn’t happen again by supporting this waiver.

I do not see MARS as a first-choice solution for our problems. Before MARS, I'd rather find a way to use new or existing public safety channels, whihc is precisely what our detractors in the FCC want us to do.

MARS does not get me on local repeaters, which is what is vital and it also places our emergency response until military control, which I don't believe is the best course. But, please send me your document and I'll take a look.

I do not believe the waivers being discussed are sufficient as they will be very limited in nature and number. I am not sure whether the Public Notice was a response to our petition. The FCC received the petition on 10/15 and the PN came out on 10/20.

I believe there are those within the Commission who seriously "don't get it" and are actively in opposition to our proposal. I believe there are many hams and local governments who see our petition as being absolutely necessary.

We are waiting to see if the Commission will assign a rule making number to our petition and are developing a strategy to help that along. Stay tuned.

73 KE5UQS