radio operators that have been identified as engaging in harmful interferences by the Board. Even so, such a Column 2d listing is of some value. Such a registration will offer "security against future stations listed in Column 2d interfering with their operations--provided that they are operating in accordance with the ITU Convention and Radio Regulations." The foregoing assessment does offer support for the proposition that the first to list an assignment with the Board will derive an advantage therefrom. This conclusion was captured by Ickowitz in his summary: Only those stations which function in the planned portion of the spectrum in accordance with ITU . . . [allocations] are entitled to an absolute right to international protection from interfering users. Assignments operating in accordance with the Convention and Radio Regulations receive limited protection against future newcomers. The Board can refuse to protect a station which has interfered with these users when subsequently registered stations interfere with it in the future. Finally, the doctrine of prior notification is applied by the Board when both parties are in conformity with the Convention and Radio Regulations, or when two . . . [registrants] listed in Column 2d of the Register interfere with each other. He concluded that the concept of "priority" needs clarification in an operational context. Since the Regulations do not provide for exceptions to its applicability, much has been left to the undirected judgment of the IFRB. Consequently, a "principle like that of the 'first-come, first-served1 rule must be limited in some way before it can become a workable doctrine in a variety of situations. As it is applied now, the Ibid., citing Paragraph 501. Ibid., p. 87.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==