This wasn't a fight for ARRL only -- but ARAs worldwide.
Communications policy and spectrum allocation has been a global community
matter from day one, respectfully. We must recognize that to not
mis-charge the term or situation politically. Players left and right --
globally -- are complicit, because no one wants to be left holding the bag
that "held up broadband deployment".
Great band, 9cm, and 6cm, 13cm with it. But these are the precise spots
cellular wants. 23cm is not immune etiher. Dark skies indeed.
Incumbent cm-wave microwave spectrum use -- amateur and traditional
commercial uses alike -- has never before been so threatened.
Use these bands while you can.
VY 73 DE KF4YLM
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jay RM <w9rm@calmesapartners.com> wrote:
> Anybody who has been paying attention to the impending switch from 4G to 5G
> cellular technology has known, or at least strongly suspected, this was
> going to happen. The move to open the 3 GHz band for cellular
> communications has been ongoing for some time. As a matter of fact, the
> spectrum from 3.4 to 3.6 GHz has been designated as "globally harmonized".
> In other words, a world-wide operating band. This spectrum was reallocated
> in the UK a couple years ago and most ITU Region 1 countries have reserved
> it for commercial use for many years. The USA is VERY late to the 3 GHZ
> party. This "harmonization" was discussed and acted upon during WRC2015.
> Read all about it here:
>
> https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/3-GHz-in-the-5G-era.pdf
>
> The "MOBILE NOW Act", passed in 2017 does not specify ANY frequency bands.
> It mandates the "making available" ("ripping away from current occupants"
> in non-Govspeak) of 255 MHz of new spectrum below 6 GHz. One can read a
> summary of the bill here:
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/19
>
> The old satellite C-Band (remember the big old TVRO dishes of the 1970's)
> is currently being ripped to shreds by this same MOBILE NOW act. A huge
> number of commercial users still depend on this band
>
> Like Wayne, I don't recall anything from the ARRL about this, but it may
> have been released back in 2015 after WRC. But, anybody in Amateur Radio
> who thinks they can make any kind of impact or change to this FCC docket
> (remember, the 3456 band was virtually re-allocated at WRC 15 as GLOBALLY
> IMPORTANT) is deluded. 3.4 is a shared band in ITU Region 2 and I don't
> believe Amateurs are even primary users. This isn't bad old UPS package
> delivery trying to sneak in and steal 220 MHz - this is communications
> GLOBALIZATION at work, sanctioned by the ITU years ago. Maybe, just maybe,
> an organization could lobby for some sort of compensation for loss of
> equipment. This is common in commercial reallocations. But, since we're
> not a commercial entity. . .
>
> Why did this happen ? Who forced this change ? If you cherish and depend
> on a cellular smartphone every waking minute of your life. . . well, YOU
> did. Bashing the ARRL or anybody else isn't going to change anything.
>
> -W9RM
>
>
> Keith J Morehouse
> Managing Partner
> Calmesa Partners G.P.
> Olathe, CO
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 6:50 AM Steve(K1IIG) <stephen.tripp@snet.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hello Wayne and others,
> >
> > Wayne I do not think the sky is falling but it sure is getting dark over
> > our
> > amateur community. There is a long history of our ham bands being
> attacked
> > and given to others. I think it started with 11m (27mhz) to the truckers
> > etc, 220mhz to UPS which I don't think they are using ,then Pave Paws
> > radar
> > shut down 440mhz repeaters on the East and West coast within 50mi of
> their
> > radar systems, then 900mhz shared with consumer wireless products, then
> > attempt to get the 40ghz band, then an attempt to get a portion of 2m in
> > the
> > UK and now 3ghz. Did I miss any?
> > It is all about $$ and the Cell companies with deep pockets are moving up
> > the bands. I was in cellular since 1984 when we only had a portion of the
> > 800mhz band and now look what they have. I think in the US, without
> > looking
> > it up, they have segments in 600, 700,800,1900,2100, 2350 and moving up
> > the
> > bands. Air waves are not free and the FCC is more then willing to
> auction
> > off these bands for big bucks. The other situation is the RFI generated
> > by
> > the carriers. They are putting 4 bands under one radome fed by fiber
> > and one can only imagine the mixing products produced. Each one of these
> > antennas can weigh as much as 180lbs. Last week I spoke with an AT&T
> > engineer who said he is personally managing 3000 sites doing 5g upgrades.
> > WOW. My point is this, they are
> > aggressively trying to get more bandwidth and we should protect what we
> > have
> > and not give into them without a fight.
> >
> > So what to do? I think the ARRL should have posted this info on this
> > reflector and others informing us on what we can do. I also think they
> > (ARRL) should notify each VHF/UHF contest club to disseminate this
> > information.
> >
> > I guess I will hold off finishing my 3456 beacon.
> >
> > 73's
> > Steve
> > K1IIG
> > FN-31nl
> >
> > > A proposal that is on the agenda for the FCC's Dec. 12 meeting would
> > > remove amateur radio from the 9 cm. band entirely. As mandated by
> > > Congress in the MOBILE NOW Act, the FCC is proposing to entirely
> > eliminate
> > > our allocation in the 3.3-3.55 GHz band as part of a plan to make much
> > > more spectrum available for 5G mobile phone systems.
> > >
> > > The Notice of Proposed Rule Making is WT Docket 19-348.
> > >
> > > If enacted as proposed, this would be catastrophic for the weak signal
> > > community that is now on 3456 MHz. I alone have nearly $10,000 worth
> of
> > > equipment for 3456 MHz--with receipts to prove it. That includes
> > > transverters, amplifiers and antennas. Each transverter cost me
> between
> > > $500 and $800 (U.S.) and I have seventeen (17) 3456 transverters
> > > manufactured by either DB6NT or DEMI.
> > >
> > > Where was ARRL when the "MOBILE NOW" Act was approved? Why haven't we
> > > heard a lot more about this before now? I've searched ARRL.org and
> > can't
> > > find any reference to "MOBILE NOW" there. I just bought another 3456
> > > transverter after the MOBILE NOW Act was signed into law (after being
> > > amended into another bill). I wish I'd known that we're about to lose
> > > this band before spending still more money on equipment for 3456.
> > >
> > > I know about this now only because of Brennan Price's message on the
> "My
> > > ARRL Voice" section of Facebook. In a comment on Brennan's posting,
> > ARRL
> > > Director Ria Jairam confirmed that this docket does indeed propose to
> > > remove our 9 cm. allocation entirely.
> > >
> > > It sounds as if the sky is falling. Can someone tell me that the sky
> > > ISN'T falling?
> > >
> > > -Wayne Overbeck, N6NB
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > VHFcontesting mailing list
> > VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|