Subject: [NEXTEL-1] FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR MODERN COMMUNICATIONS (DATED)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 05:35:28 -0500

Frequency Management--The
Dilemma For Modern Communications

CSC 1984

SUBJECT AREA C4

FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR
MODERN COMMUNICATIONS

The Writing Program
Command and Staff College

Major Dennis G. Courtnage
United States Marine Corps

April 4, 1984

FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR MODERN COMMUNICATIONS

Outline

Thesis sentence:  The dilemma facing modern communica-
tions is the management of the
frequency spectrum.

I.  Introduction

A.   Challenge of Modern Requirements

B.   Management System

C.   USMC Management Structure

II. Management Tools

A.   Standardization

B.   Spectrum Analysis

C.   CEOI

III. The Future

A.  New C-E Systems

B.  Combined and Joint Operations

C.  Solutions

FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR

MODERN COMMUNICATIONS

The modern battlefield is dramatically different

from the battlefield of 40 years ago.  Technology has

rapidly changed the means and methods of conducting

war.  Advancements in weaponry, electronics, and

transportation have not only increased the size of the

battlefield and made it more accessible, but they have

also made it a more complex environment in which to

fight.  More than any other combat area, command,

control, and communications (C3) has gone through the

most dramatic evolution.  Solid state circuitry, minia-

turization of electronic components, and computer

technology have moved C3 into the space age.  Today's

"electronic battlefield" offers challenges that our

modern military finds increasingly difficult to meet.

The one requirement that electronic equipments

normally have in common is that they have to be "linked"

to like devices or systems to function.  Whether it's

tactical radios, radars, sensors, computer processors,

or target acquisition systems, all component devices

require a means of linking themselves.  It is no

surprise that the most popular medium for this "communi-

cations" requirement is space itself.  Space already

exists.  Space does not have to be made, moved, or

replaced.  It is always there.  The electronic means of

travel through space is the radio wave.  A particular

number of radio waves measured over a particular period

of time is known as radio frequency.  The radio fre-

quency spectrum has become today's most popular means of

communications because it is the simplest to access.

However, there is one major shortcoming.  The number of

radio frequencies that can be passed through space is

finite.  The problem is further complicated by the fact

that electronic devices being produced for the modern

battlefield each emit signals that have varying

characteristics which affect the radio spectrum

differently.  These "emission characteristics" include

emitter power, signal width (bandwidth), modulation

(AM--Amplitude or FM--Frequency), and how the

intelligence is superimposed on the radio wave

(Analog/Voice or Digital/Data).  These emission

characteristics have a direct effect on how far the

signal may travel, how much of the radio spectrum it

will take up, and where in the spectrum the signal must

travel.  It appears that the electronic battlefield is

here to stay.  Technology cannot win the next war by

itself, but neither can our forces achieve victory

without efficient command, control, and communications.

The dilemma facing modern communications is the manage-

ment of the frequency spectrum.

The United States Marine Corps has not allowed

itself to be excluded from the quest for modern elec-

tronics on the battlefield.  During the last three

years, Marines have fielded numerous updated tactical

communications equipment.  They are but the tip of the

iceberg.  During the next five years, massive amounts of

new electronics equipment will be fielded by Marines.

The requirements to use the radio frequency spectrum by

the Corps are increasing, as they are in other services,

government agencies, and the civilian sector.  Now, more

than any time before, the Marine Corps will have to pay

some attention to what it has long taken for granted,

radio frequencies.  Frequency managers and users must

come to grips with the fact that there may not be enough

frequencies to go around.  Are there solutions or

alternatives?  A yes or no answer is probably not

correct in every case.  In order to solve the frequency

problem, the frequency manager must know the allocation

system.  The hierarchy of the frequency management

system has been around for awhile, but it is doubtful

that many Marines and frequency managers know much about

the system.

To understand the hierarchy of the frequency manage-

ment system requires the study of U. S. government

agencies in their most typical bureaucratic form.  The

wire diagram in Figure 1 may be helpful in following the

flow of management levels.  It all started in 1934 with

the National Telecommunications Act.  This act estab-

lished the National Telecommunications Information

Administration (NTIA) (See Appendix 1 on last page for

definition of acronyms and abbreviations to manage

frequency usage by government agencies; and it also

established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

to be responsible for frequency usage by non-government

agencies.  This was not the total responsibility for

each agency, but it soon blossomed into large responsi-

bilities for each.  This is the only level of frequency

management that appears to be simple.  The Inter-

dependent Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) was estab-

lished to assist NTIA in the management of the govern-

ment use of the frequency spectrum.  IRAC membership is

composed of numerous government departments and agen-

cies, including the U. S. Navy.  One of four standing

subcommittees of IRAC is the Frequency Assignment

Subcommittee (FAS).  This subcommittee is responsible

for approving government stations to NTIA.  A subcom-

mittee to FAS is the Military Assignment Group (MAG),

which is chaired by the U. S. Air Force.  MAG approves

assignments in the Very High Frequency (VHF) and the

Ultra High Frequency (UHF) bands.1  These two bands

Click here to view image

contain frequencies for the majority of USMC tactical

communications equipment.  The management level now for

the first time reaches the Department of Defense (DOD),

although, as noted, military membership is maintained at

levels above DOD.  The Assistant Secretary of Defense

for C3 and Intelligence (ASD[C3]) is responsible for

overall management and use of the radio frequency

spectrum in DOD.2  The responsibility then filters down

through JCS to the Military Communications-Electronics

Board (MCEB).  It is at this level that the Marine Corps

first gets any significant membership into the manage-

ment system.  A permanent member of this board is the

Director, Telecommunications Branch of C4 Division at

Headquarters, Marine Corps.  The MCEB is the primary

agency for the coordination of military communications-

electronics (C-E) matters among DOD components, DOD and

other government agencies, and between DOD and foreign

nation representatives.  MCEB is chaired by the

Director, Defense Communications Agency (DCA).  The MCEB

is made up of numerous panels, all of which play some

role in spectrum management.  The Joint Frequency Panel

(JFP) of the MCEB is the principal coordinating agency

on spectrum management.  It allots and assigns frequen-

cies within DOD.  All military services seat a member on

this panel.  This assignment policy in actuality is

differentiated even more within the Department of the

Navy (DON), which is the next level down in the

management flow.  Responsibilities further filter down

through the Director, Naval Communications Division and

the Commander, Naval Telecommunications Command

(COMNAVTELCOM) to the work horse of spectrum management

within DON, the Naval Electromagnetic Spectrum Center

(NAVEMSCEN).  The Director, NAVEMSCEN assigns all radio

frequencies for use by USN and USMC activities within

the United States and Its Possessions (USIP).3  Fre-

quency assignments outside of USIP for USN and USMC

activities, to include fleet and air assignments, are

made by the JFP.  NAVEMSCEN is a member of JFP and often

coordinates these requests from fleet, area, and joint

commanders.  Specified and unified commands can make

their own assignments outside of the USIP, but normally

must coordinate usage with foreign nation representa-

tives of the country(s) they operate in.  Requirements

for frequency assignments for USN and USMC elements

operating temporarily within a foreign country or its

waters should be coordinated through NAVEMSCEN and JFP,

who in turn coordinate with the host nation(s) and the

area USCINC.  This is one area of management that USMC

elements (i.e., MAU, MAB, and MAF) have often been

negligent in when deploying to foreign countries for

joint exercises.  Communication planners at these levels

routinely go directly to the host nation's militay exer-

cise director and request the required frequencies for

USMC elements during the exercise.  This method has

managed to work for short term exercises, but it has

left the JFP, the area CINC, and the assigned foreign

nation representative/agency out of the planning and

coordinating process.  When deploying to a real contin-

gency within a CINC's area of responsibility in a

foreign country, the direct request method to a host

nation exercise planner will probably not exist.  Commu-

nication-Electronics Officers (CEO) and frequency

managers on Marine Corps Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF)

staffs need to understand this area of management and be

prepared to plan as far in advance as possible to coor-

dinate requirements for frequencies.

Frequency management research requires analysis of

international agencies.  The International Telecommuni-

cations Union (ITU) was organized to decide what organi-

zations would be allowed to use portions of the

frequency spectrum world-wide.4  The ITU has 159 member

countries and is recognized by the United Nations as the

agency for establishing international ground rules for

spectrum use.  Within the ITU is the International

Frequency Registration Board.  It is made up of 5 member

countries elected every 5 years.  This board records

assignments by countries and furnishes advice on how to

use the spectrum.  Member countries must recognize the

Table of Frequency Allocation produced by ITU.  Addi-

tionally, an International Register of Frequency Assign-

ments is produced and recognized by member nations.5

In NATO, the Allied Radio Frequency Agency (ARFA) is

responsible for C-E plans, policies, and engineering.

The U. S. representative to ARFA is located at USCINCEUR

headquarters.  In SEATO or any equivalent organization,

no equivalent to ARFA exists.  U. S. spectrum planning

with any of these organizations, as noted earlier,

should be coordinated with the cognizant U. S. author-

ity.  Within NATO, for any assigned frequencies to be

recognized and protected they must be on the Master

Radio Frequency List (MRFL), which is coordinated by

ARFA.  NAVEMSCEN, as a member of the JFP, can coordinate

requirements for USN and USMC elements planning to oper-

ate in NATO.  This coordination is made directly with

USCINCEUR and AFRA.  A recent example of this coordina-

tion ability was when NAVEMSCEN coordinated the Second

Marine Aircraft Wing's air-to-air transit frequencies

for both a northern and a southern fly-over route to

Norway for its participation in a 4th MAB cold weather

exercise.  Some of the countries included in the

coordination effort were Canada, Portugal, and Norway.6

When U.S. forces plan operations in the United Kingdom,

New Zealand, Australia, or Canada, coordination is made

through the Combined Communications-Electronics Board

(CCEB), of which all of these countries (including the

U. S.) are members.  Again, NAVEMSCEN coordinates Navy

and Marine requirements with CCEB.7

The next level down in the spectrum management flow

are the Navy Area Frequency Coordinators (AFC's).  These

AFC's are where the Marine Corps frequency managers

interface into the management system.  To simplify the

understanding of the AFC's mission, management para-

meters must be confined to CONUS and afloat commands

only.  There are three main Navy AFC's.  The Joint Fre-

quency Management Office, Atlantic (JFMO LANT) located

in Norfolk, Virginia, supports both USCINCLANT and

CINCLANTFLT.  Its area of responsibility is all of the

U. S. land mass east of the Mississippi River and afloat

commands in the Atlantic theatre under CINCLANTFLT.  The

Naval Frequency Coordinator, Western U. S. located in

Port Magu, California, coordinates all frequencies for

USCINCPAC for all of the U. S. land mass west of the

Mississippi River, to include Alaska.  The Joint Fre-

quency Management Office, Pacific (JFMO PAC), located in

Hawaii, supports afloat commands under CINCPACLFT in the

Pacific theatre.  JFMO PAC also coordinates under both

major Pacific commanders that are located in Japan,

Okinawa, and the Philippines.  All of the AFC's receive

their frequencies for use within CONUS from NAVEMSCEN.*

Frequencies assigned to the JFMO's for use outside of

CONUS are obtained from JFP.

*The exception to this rule are frequencies in outer
space, to include satellite frequencies.  These
frequencies are coordinated through IRAC.

It is also important to mention that the two Naval Com-

munication Area Master Stations (NAVCAMS) for CINCLANT-

FLT and CINCPACFLT coordinate ship-to-shore and shore-

to-shore broadcast terminations (Examples are Fleet

Broadcast circuits and DCS entry terminations).**  The

JFP receives its frequencies from NTIA and foreign

nations.  NAVEMSCEN receives all of its frequencies from

NTIA.

The Marine Corps has billets for its frequency mana-

gers at FMFPAC and FMFLANT, at the MAF level, at the

division/wing/FSSG level, and at major Marine Corps

installations.  MAB's and MAU's don't have billets for

frequency managers.  Within these commands, frequency

management comes under the cognizance of the CEO or

communications officer.  In commands that rate frequency

managers, that billet falls under the CEO.  Marine

frequency managers are assigned a formal MOS, 2581.  To

receive this MOS, a Marine must graduate from the Air

Force Interservice Frequency Management Course located

at Keisler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi.  There

are three classes conducted each year.  The Navy/USMC

are normally allotted six quotas per class, which

historically are never completely filled.8  These school

assignments are controlled through the C4 Division,

**NAVCAMSLANT is located in Norfolk, Virginia and
NAVCAMSPAC is located in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Telecommunications Branch and the Manpower Division at

Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) for all Marine person-

nel.  Normally, only E-6/7's are assigned to the school.

This author's experience has also shown that requests by

FMF commands for school quotas are rarely denied by

HQMC.  The CEO and frequency manager receive all of

their CONUS frequencies (permanent or temporary) from

the responsible AFC.  As mentioned before, frequencies

required for use outside of CONUS should be coordinated

through the senior fleet command to NAVEMSCEN.

The business of actually managing the world's fre-

quency spectrum, as one can readily imagine, is very

complex.  A means had to be developed to standardize

terminology and assignment policy.  The ITU pioneered

the first international standards.  The NTIA and FCC

regulate the standards in the U. S.  A detailed review

of national standards is beyond the scope of this

paper.  The Manual of Regulations and Procedures for

Federal Frequency Management, published by NTIA, lists

frequency bands that are authorized for specific use by

government agencies.  Various government and military

publications list standard emission designations and

codes for the multitude of different communiction

emitters.  These emission designators are a tremendous

management tool in limiting spectrum use.  All Marine

Corps electronic equipments that emit a radio signal are

coded with an emission designator.  A good example of

how emission standards can limit frequency use is simply

the power of the emitter.  If a frequency is assigned to

a command, chances are there is a limitation imposed as

to how much power may be used to transmit on it.  This

may allow another user adjacent to this command to use

the same frequency with an identical power restriction.

The power restriction would prevent either signal on

that frequency from traveling into each other's area and

interfering.  This emission restriction allows dual use

of a frequency and helps to maximize the use of the

radio spectrum.

A management tool that Marine Corps frequency mana-

gers can use is spectrum analysis.  Electronic equip-

ment is designed to operate within a particular band of

the radio spectrum.  Many factors contribute to fre-

quency range design, but for Marine Corps tactical radio

equipment the biggest determining factor is the distance

the radio signal must travel.  Radio power, antenna

design, terrain, and atmospheric conditions all affect

how far a radio signal will travel.  Frequency managers

must engineer the signal path to accurately determine

what frequency(s) is necessary to make the transmission

successful.  These calculations are especially critical

in the HF and UHF bands when skywave* signals are used.

*Radio signal is bent or reflected off the ionosphere to
extend signal distance.

The frequency manager has numerous aids in performing

spectrum analysis.  The DOD agency specifically created

to perform spectrum analysis is the Electromagnetic

Compatibility Analysis Center (ECAC) located in

Annapolis, Maryland.  All DOD communication planners

have access to this agency.  ECAC can analyze any part

of the radio spectrum all over the world.  It is unfor-

tunate that few Marine frequency planners take full

advantage of this agency.  Technology has also ushered

in the means to automate spectrum management at the user

level.  ECAC produces a program designed for a Hewlett

Packard hand-held calculator to engineer HF radio nets.

A similar program exists for a Texas instrument calcu-

lator.  DON sponsors a computer terminal and program

called "PROPHET" to locally engineer skywave communica-

tions.  The Marine Corps has recently purchased a new

tactical spectrum analyzer called the TRQ-35 or Chirp-

sounder.  It actually transmits over frequencies in the

HF band to distant station receivers to provide real-

time frequency analysis.  The significance of spectrum

analysis to frequency management is that it prevents

valuable frequency assets from being assigned to

requirements where they will not work.  Consequently,

they are not used and are wasted.

Frequencies necessary for FMF units to operate

within their routine training environment are what the

AFC's call tactical and operation (T and O) frequen-

cies.  This area of management has been facilitated by

the introduction of the automated Communications-Elec-

tronics Operations Instructions (CEOI).  Training CEOI's

are published for all FMF commands and the U. S. Army by

NSA to enhance communications security (COMSEC) for

military radio communications.  The CEOI's contain the

command's unit callsigns and assigned T and O frequen-

cies (which are programmed to change every 24 hours),

and also contain special communication coordinating and

operating instructions.  Training CEOI's are published

in 10 day increments and shipped by NSA in 60 day pack-

ages.  To create changes in a CEOI takes an average of

90 to 120 days.  NSA requires a 7 to 9 month lead time

to create a new CEOI.  The frequencies that are placed

in the CEOI must come to NSA from the command's

frequency manager.  NSA also produces a program tape

that can be run on local computers to generate a

command's own CEOI.  This capability is especially help-

ful to the frequency manager when an exercise is being

conducted in an area outside of the approved geographi-

cal area for assigned T and O frequencies.  A new set of

frequencies must be requested and assigned to the CEOI

for that particular exercise.  The NSA published CEOI

takes into account COSITE interference problems when

assigning VHF frequencies to units.  The locally gener-

ated program produces a COSITE Exception Report to iden-

tify interference problems for the frequency manager

prior to the exercise starting.  The Army's publication,

TC 24-1, contains specific data on CEOI's.9 NSA is

currently developing CEOI's to meet specific wartime

contingency plans.  It is also developing CEOI's for the

U. S. Coast Guard and reviewing designs for potential

Allied Ground Force CEOI's in NATO.10

Future demands by the Marine Corps on the frequency

spectrum are going to be exorbitant.  MCDEC's Landing

Force Integrated Communication System (LFICS) design for

future C3 is mind boggling.  Acronyms and terms for new

equipments, like PLRS, MIFASS, MAGIS, TCO, ULCS, Fre-

quency Hoppers, and SATCOM "Hubbers," may become every-

day language for future Marines, but frequency managers

may file them away under "too hard."  Current demands

have already outstripped assets.  The squad level radio,

the new reorganized infantry battalion weapons systems,

and the introduction of TOW platoons into infantry

regimental headquarters have produced new frequency

requirements not yet resolved.  At JFMO LANT, the

problems surfacing with FMFLANT commands may not have

solutions.  There are no more permanent VHF frequencies

available for assignment to Marine commands at Camp

Lejeune.  Part of the problem is that Marine VHF radios

tune only in 50 khz channels and of the 920 channels

available in the 30 to 75 mhz VHF radio band only 113

are available for military use.  In fact, JFMO LANT

routinely borrows frequencies from the local FCC repre-

sentative to meet exercise requirements.11  Possibly the

most frightening development on the horizon for Marine

frequency managers is ITT's SINCGARS* "frequency

hopping" radio.  It is programmed to replace the Corps'

reliable old AN/PRC-77 and the VRC-12 family of VHF

radios.  SINCGARS is designed to operate on a single

frequency or "frequency hop" (the radio moves over

numerous programmed frequencies at high speed) to defeat

enemy jamming.  The radio has an increased frequency

range and 25 khz tuning to provide 2320 total chan-

nels.12  But when one ponders that a single radio net

may have a "hopset" of 150 frequencies, the increase in

channels seems to have little bearing.  The unanswered

question about SINCGARS is whether frequencies used in a

"hopset" will be interfered with or whether the hopping

will be transparent to those frequencies.  If interfer-

ence is caused, then SINCGARS may have to be assigned

smaller and specific bands of frequencies to hop on vice

using the entire VHF spectrum of radio.  The Army's

Organizational Test and Evaluation Agency (OTEA) is

currently testing SINCGARS on this problem.  If the test

proves negative, SINCGARS will become a nightmare for

*Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio Subsystem.

frequency managers.  A test conducted on SINCGARS by the

Naval Ocean Systems Center at Camp Pendleton in 1983

showed COSITE interference to be a problem.13  ECAC has

contracted the IIT Research Institute to produce a field

generated management system for SINCGARS for the U. S.

Army.  IITRI responded by producing a hand-held computer

(HHC) with a program called BASIS (Battlefield Automated

SINCGARS Information System) to manage frequency hop-

sets.  ECAC currently has a HHC system called ACES

(Automated CEOI Elements System) used to produce a CEOI

on the battlefield.14  The Marine Corps has shown some

interest in ACES and BASIS.  NSA has not approved either

system and one can only guess if any of the services

will acquire the systems.

Combined and joint operations continue to be a major

dilemma for frequency managers.  Putting any two or more

fighting forces together with dissimilar organization

and training, and  without proper frequency planning,

will insure C3 failures.  NSA's move to produce CEOI's

for U. S. contingency plans is a step in the right

direction.  But what about contingencies without an

existing plan, such as the recent operation in Grenada?

If time permits, prior coordination of C-E plans is

essential to good C3.  If time is short, the simple

exchanging of CEOI's or C-E plans between forces can

greatly reduce C3 problems.  Commanders in joint and

combined operations cannot afford to ignore frequency

management and assume things will work themselves out.

C3 is a command responsibility, not the CEO's.  The

agencies listed in this paper provide the commander with

the proper channels for coordinating frequencies

anywhere in the world.  Not utilizing these channels

defeats a system ready to help.

The frequency management system was put in place to

provide continued control over the radio spectrum.

Solutions to problems will not come easy.  NAVEMSCEN

uses the Government Master File of Frequencies (main-

tained by IRAC) to plan its frequency allocations.  It

meets each month with the Frequency Assignment Subcom-

mittee of IRAC to review both new frequency requests and

renewal of existing assignments.  All permanently

assigned frequencies have to be reviewed every five

years, including those assigned to Marines from the

AFC's.15  JCS tasked ECAC to develop and maintain a Fre-

quency Resource Record System (FRRS) to allow all DOD

frequency managers the opportunity to coordinate fre-

quency related information.  FRRS stores all military

assigned frequencies and associated management data,

provides easy user access, provides propagation and

interference predictions, and is computerized to reduce

time-consuming research.16  NAVEMSCEN also uses a

variety of computers to assist in its day-to-day alloca-

tion and assignment functions.  This naval system also

provides a reliable back-up to the FRRS.17  JFMO LANT

in Norfolk uses a WANG 2200 system to manage its fre-

quency data.  JFMO updates its data base each month with

the FRRS.  Despite these elaborate computer systems, the

challenges are great.  The frequency spectrum is being

crowded in all levels.  The UHF spectrum of 225-400 mhz

has normally not been a problem for Marines, until now.

The introduction of new communication satellites in

space by numerous countries has saturated this particu-

lar band.  TACAN frequency ranges (960-1215 mhz), used

by the USN and USMC to guide its aircraft, has almost

bottomed out with the increase of commercial use

(particularly commercial T.V.) of the band.18

This paper has made the complete circle and returned

to the original problem; there simply may not be enough

frequencies to go around.  The military services may

have to decide to go on a C3 diet.  The answer may be to

reduce tactical communications on the battlefield

instead of increasing them.  Reduction of doctrinal

radio nets, utilization of data links, and integration

of circuits are all methods that future Marine communi-

cation planners must consider.  Frequency managers must

stay in tune with the new technology.  Time sharing,

geographical assignment, automated planning, and system

coordination are their tools for creating success.  One

theme that continued to surface during the research for

this paper was the need for advanced planning.  Marine

commanders must stop ignoring C3 and improve their

chances of success by getting their frequency planners

involved early in the planning cycle.

NOTES
1Interservice Radio Frequency Management School,
U.S.A.F., Guide to Spectrum Regulation and Management,
Lesson Plan 7801-701 (Kiesler, AFB), pp.6.

2JCS, Guide to Frequency Planning, ACP 190, U. S.
SUPP-1(B) (Washington, D.C.), pp. 2-1.

3CNO; Department of the Navy; Management and Use of
the Radio Frequency Spectrum Within the Department of
the Navy (DON, OPNAV INSTRUCTION 2400.20D (Washington;
D.C., Jan 1983), pp. 6.

4COS, MCDEC, U.S.M.C., Frequency Management, COS-
0745-B (Quantico; Virginia, 1980), pp. 2.

5Interservice Radio Frequency Management School,
U.S.A.F., International Spectrum Management, Lesson Plan
7801-701 (Kiesler, AFB), pp. 5.

6Don Zimmer, Head; Below 30 MHZ Assignment Branch,
NAVEMSCEN, personal interview about frequency
management, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984.

7COMNAVTELCOM, USN, Spectrum Management Manual,
NTP 6(A) w/Ch. 1 (Washington; D.C., Oct 1982), pp. 2-12.

8Ray Davis, CONUS Frequency Manager/Joint Exercise
Coordinator, JFMO LANT, personal interview about
frequency management, Norfolk, Virginia, February 15,
1984.

9U.S. Army,Communications-Electronis Operation
Instructions, "The CEOI," TC 24-1 (Washington, D.C.,
1982).

10Art Wright, Field CEOI Representative, National
Security Agency, personal interview about CEOI's,
Quantico, Virginia, February 24, 1984.

11Ray Davis, CONUS Frequency Manager/Joint Exercise
Coordinator, JFMO LANT, personal interview about
frequency management, Norfolk, Virginia, February 15,
1984.

12SINCGARS Project Manager, U.S. Army, Acquisition
Plan for Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
(Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, Nov 9, 1982), pp. 1.

13Kershaw, J. E., Naval Ocean Systems Center, Inter-
ference Between Colocated VHF (30-88 MHZ) Frequency
Hopping and VHF-FM (30-76 MHZ) Tactical Radios in a
"Command Post" Configuration (San Diego, California,
September 7, 1983).

14Brooks E. Remencus, Research Communications
Analyst, IITRI; personal inteview about frequency man-
agement for SINCGARS, Annapolis, Maryland, February 3,
1984.

15Don Zimmer, Head, Below 30 MHZ Assignment Branch,
NAVEMSCEN, personal interview about frequency manage-
ment, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984.

16COMNAVTELCOM, USN, Spectrum Management Manual,
NTP 6(A) w/Ch. 1 (Washington, D.C., Oct 1982), pp.
F-1/2.

17Ibid., pp. F-1.

18Joe Josephson, Head, Over 30 MHZ Assignment Branch,
NAVEMSCEN, personal interview about frequency manage-
ment, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.  Commander, Naval Telecommunications Command.  Spec-
trum Management Manual, NTP-6(A) w/Ch. 1.
Washington, D.C., October 1982.

2.  Davis, Ray.  CONUS Frequency Manager, JFMO LANT,
U. S. Navy, Norfolk, Virginia.  Personal interview
about frequency management.  Norfolk, February 15,
1984.

3.  Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Guide to Frequency Planning,
ACP 190, U.S. SUPP-1(B).  Washington, D.C. October
1977.

4.  Josephseon, Joe.  Head, Over 30 MHZ Assignment
Branch, NAVEMSCEN, Washington, D.C.  Personal
interview about frequency management.  Washington,
D.C., March 5, 1984.

5.  Kershaw, J. E.  Interference Between Colocated VHF
(30-76 MHZ) Frequency Hopping and VHF-FM (30-76
MHZ) Tactical Radios in a "Command Post" Configur-
ation.  San Diego, Naval Ocean Systems Center,
September 7, 1983.

6.  Military Communications-Electronics Board.  Joint
Spectrum Management Policies and Procedures, Memo
USMCEB-M-January 11, 1983.

7.  Remencus, Brooks E.  Research Communications
Analyst, IIT Research Institute, Annapolis,
Maryland.  Personal interview about frequency
management for SINCGARS.  Annapolis, February 30,
1984.

8.  U. S. Air Force.  Interservice Radio Frequency Man-
agement School.  Guide to Spectrum Regulation and
Management, Lesson Plan 7807-705.  Kiesler AFB,
Biloxi, Mississippi.

9.  U. S. Air Force.   Interservice Radio Frequency Man-
agement School.  International Spectrum Manage-
ment, Lesson Plan 7801-701.  Kiesler AFB, Biloxi,
Mississippi.

10. U. S. Army.  SINCGARS Project Manager.  Acquisition
Plan for Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio
System.  Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, November 9,
1982.

11. U. S. Army.  Communications-Electronics Operations
Instructions "The CEOI," TC 24-1.  Washington,
D.C., May 28, 1982.

12. U. S. Marine Corps.  MCDEC.  Communication Officers
School.  Frequency Management, Lesson Plan COS-
0745-B.  Quantico, Virginia, 1980.

13. U. S. Navy.  USCINCLANT.  Joint Frequency Management
and Spectrum Engineering Office (JFMO), Atlantic
Charter.  Norfolk, April 15, 1981.

14. U. S. Navy.  Management and Use of the Radio Fre-
quency Spectrum Within the Department of the Navy
DON, OPNAV INSTR 2400.20D.  Washington, D.C.,
November 4, 1982.

15. Wright, Art.   CEOI Representative, NSA, Fort Meade,
Maryland.   Personal interview about CEOI's and
frequency assignments.  Quantico, Virginia,
February 24, 1984.

16. Zimmer, Don.  Head, Below 30 MHZ Assignment Branch,
NAVEMSCEN, Washington, D.C.  Personal interview
about frequency management.  Washington, D.C.,
March 5, 1984.

APPENDIX

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACES - Automated CEOI Elements System

AFC - Area Frequency Coordinator

ARFA - Allied Radio Frequency Agency

BASIS - Battlefield Automated SINCGARS Information

System

CCEB - Combined Communications-Electronics Board

CEO - Communication-Electronics Officer

CEOI - Communication-Electronics Operations Instruction

CINC - Commander in Chief

CONUS - Continental United States

COMSEC - Communications Security

DCA - Defense Communication Agency

DCS - Defenses Communication System

ECAC - Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center

FAS - Frequency Assignment Subcommittee

FCC - Federal Communications Commission

FRRS - Frequency Resource Record System

HHC - Hand-Held Computer

IRAC - Interdependent Radio Advisory Committee

ITT - International Telephone and Telegraph

ITU - International Telecommunications Union

JFMO - Joint Frequency Management Office

JFP - Joint Frequency Panel

LFICS - Landing Force Integrated Communications System

MAG - Military Assignment Group

MAGIS - Marine Air-Ground Intelligence System

MCEB - Military Communications-Electronics Board

MIFASS - Marine Integrated Fire and Air Support System

MRFL - Master Radio Frequency List

NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NAVCAMS - Naval Communication Area Master Station

NSA - National Security Agency

NTIA - National Telecommunications and Information

Administration

OTEA - Organizational Test and Evaluation Agency

PLRS - Position Location Reporting System

SATCOM - Satellite Communications

SEATO - Southeast Asia Treaty Organization

SINCGARS - Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio

Subsystem

TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation (System)

TCO - Tactical Combat Operations (System)

ULCS - Unit Level Circuit Switch

USIP - United States and Its Possessions

--
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/