[VHFcontesting] We're about to lose 3456 MHz band entirely

Mon Nov 25 15:54:51 EST 2019

Yes that is a good point re 900 MHz.   Maybe lobbying for additional similar ISM / un licensed or lightly licensed bands that amateurs could have shared allocations in (or perhaps looking for existing allocations that might be shareable) might make sense as a go forwards plan ?  

That being said if the authorities can be convinced that amateurs deserve additional exclusive microwave allocations that would be ideal.  I am doubtful that will ever happen, but maybe the amateur Emergency communications role might provide a way forwards ?   

Some of the broad band data communications done by amateurs in support of the EMCOM role that I am aware of is done with wifi type gear operated under amateur rules and that type of useage seems to indicate that shared spectrum is useful to amateurs ?  Some time ago I looked at ways to use wifi gear and PC and smart phone apps to make contest style microwave contacts in the ISM shared bands but there was little interest from others in my area in pursuing this.   

73

Mark S
VE7AFZ

mark at alignedsolutions.com
604 762 4099

> On Nov 25, 2019, at 11:48 AM, John Geiger <af5cc2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I don't think 900mhz will be of much interest to cellular companies as there is too many other users in that band right now, as it is a ISM band.  Too much RF pollution as it currently is, and too many users to move.  At least I am hoping that is true.
> 
> Getting congress to stop the 3.4GHZ relocation will be tough when each senator or representative has less than 100 constituents who use 3.4GHZ (many with 0 constituents) and thousands of constituents just waiting for 5G (and eventually 6G) service, convinced that they need it, even if their cellular usage really won't benefit much from it.
> 
> 73 John W5TD
> 
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:37 PM Steve Stahl <ke7ihg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> "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 think the ARRL is part of the "good old boys" problem. Slap each other on
>> the back and stick head in the sand.
>> This is all about money, BIG MONEY. Data data data. Bandwidth is power. FCC
>> looks to make Billons
>> Oh and don't forget to send a check to the spectrum defense fund. Sorry, I
>> sound so cynical but the fact is we have NO CLOUT!!
>> Like truckers and farmers, it's hard to get 2 hams to agree on most
>> anything.
>> Hate to say it but the die is cast. 900 and 1.2 can't be far off their
>> radar. Maybe 70 cm too!
>> 
>> Steve K7SWS
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:48 AM Mark Spencer <mark at alignedsolutions.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > I wonder what has changed to cause continued amateur use of the band to
>> > apparently be subject to deletion ?
>> >
>> > When I was involved in a project in Canada that looked at using similar
>> > spectrum professionally approx 5 years ago, from my perspective the
>> > regulators in Canada seemed supportive of continued amateur access on a
>> > shared basis to at least some of the band.  At the time I thought the
>> > increasing commercial use might have been a good thing for amateurs as
>> > relatively low priced broad band equipment was becoming available.  To be
>> > transparent I don't have any current insight into the Canadian plans for
>> > this band.
>> >
>> > My $.02 worth, the amateur community would be better off looking for
>> > smaller chunks of microwave spectrum that can realistically be shared with
>> > other users (and trying to partner with those spectrum users) rather than
>> > trying to fight for the entire shared allocations we currently have.  In my
>> > view some professional users might be more willing to share than others (if
>> > only to make it harder for the spectrum they use to be eventually taken
>> > over by other users.)  I realize this may make co ordinated world wide
>> > allocations difficult, but some hard choices may need to be made.
>> >
>> > 73
>> > Mark S
>> > VE7AFZ
>> >
>> > mark at alignedsolutions.com
>> > 604 762 4099
>> >
>> > > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Joshua Arritt <jarritt at vt.edu> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > 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 at 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)
>> > >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > VHFcontesting mailing list
>> > VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Steve / K7SWS
>> Formerly KE7IHG
>> _______________________________________________
>> VHFcontesting mailing list
>> VHFcontesting at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting