low people to communicate. However, while this may have solved problems in the Lower 48, it created unnecessary problems for Alaska, much like it would if federal regulations required every Alaska home to have an air conditioner. Alaska did not have any issues with overcrowding, yet because of this mandate all businesses that use two-way radios—if they haven’t already—must now convert to narrowbanding. “It doesn’t fit Alaska at all,” says Gene O’Neal, chief technology officer for Carlile Transportation Systems. “[Alaska] is almost one quarter the size of the entire country,” not to mention the most sparsely populated state, the vast majority of which is not even accessible via the road system. In most cases, compliance with the mandate requires purchase, installation, and programming of a new radio for each vehicle in a company’s fleet, as well as the cost of applying for and licensing frequencies for them to use. This process is extremely time-consuming and expensive. Many industry professionals agree that the mandate was not well thought out. “The narrowbanding mandate was necessary,” says Linda Peters, chief administrative officer and general manager of ProComm Alaska LLC. “Having agreed on that, how you implement it could be more or less disruptive. I think that the FCC made a mistake when they took the whole doggone band at once. It was hugely disruptive. They could have gone about that in a different way. They could have said, ‘Okay, VHF, which is one portion of the spectrum—VHF Commercial now, VHF Public Safety now’ to stagger the times.” Despite the rampant industry rumors suggesting that Alaska is exempt from this new mandate, Alaska businesses are indeed subject to the new rules as well as associated fines. Every incident can carry a fine of $112,500—and because most radios have programmed access to several channels, each one regarded as a separate incident, one radio can result in a potential fine of more than a million dollars. However, the FCC is slow to begin enforcement of the mandate in the Alaska trucking industry. “Right now they’re slammed because they did this,” O’Neal says, “and now www.akbizmag.com
they have to respond to everybody, and everybody is coming out of the woodwork. So it’s probably taking most of their manpower to deal with that.” But Peters warns trucking companies not to mistake the current lack of enforcement for a lack of intention to enforce the mandate. “The days of the FCC not caring are over,” Peters says. “While trucking companies outside of Alaska have been cited multiple times since the first of this year, not one single trucking company inside Alaska has, so
it’s almost like they’re giving us grace,” Peters says. “However, every single week somebody in Alaska is being cited for illegal frequencies in their radio—just not trucking companies—yet.”
Solution Inspiration Alaska Trucking Association (ATA) Executive Director Aves Thompson— along with Peters, O’Neal, and representatives from various trucking companies around the state—came together to try to find a way to minimize financial and technological strain on
Northland Services: Consider it done. Since 1977, Northland has provided reliable freight transportation between Seattle, Alaska and Hawaii. With more than 140 sailings annually, Northland delivers cargo to more destinations in the 49th and 50th states than any other marine carrier. Heavy equipment, construction materials, seafood or supplies to remote villages; you name it, Northland delivers. So next time, ship with confidence. Ship with Northland.
Contact us at 1.800.426.3113 northlandservices.com
October 2013 | Alaska Business Monthly
43