They are coming for our bands !!

"Again, who wants to work on forming a coalition whose specific mission is to defend spectrum from the limitless greed of the mobile carriers?"--WY7BG

-------------------------------------------------------------

Brett,

If you can pull together the users of these bands, starting with 9cm, that would be a constructive start of any new organization. I doubt that your objective, a underlined above,is a sufficient motivator---people just want to use the Part 97 spectrum they are presently using, and they are unlikely to ALSO have some agenda against free market commerce, IMO...

Alienating a potential base by characterizing those you disagree with as "trolls" , and "anti-ham ham", doesn't help anyone. You are re-acting rather than being pro-active.

I'd be interested to see if your leadership skills can pull together your effort. You might also try to explain why you did not act earlier, given that the loss of 9cm was imminent, and something I have warned about for quite some time.

Sorry you did not take me up on my invitation for a visit a few weeks back. Here's where I was in Wyoming... I am out there often (at J-Hole as a base).

73
Chip W1YW

 

How would hams make efficient use of the 3.3-3.5 GHz spectrum, since that's what started this. There are some point-to-point microwave links out there, and maybe on a contest weekend some folks on hilltops make a few SSB contacts. How does that use justify locking up 200Mhz of spectrum? What SHOULD we be doing with this spectrum to justify us keeping it?

We're the "special interest" group here. What do you propose the ARRL be doing? What specific arguments do you have besides that this shouldn't be happening?

The world has changed, and what was previously useless spectrum is now very valuable. Meanwhile, hams use of the spectrum really hasn't changed much. 50 years ago, ham radio (on VHF/UHF) mirrored what was going on in the LMR world - repeaters, FM mobiles, etc. We were experimenting with packet 40 years ago, NTSC, etc, phone patches were like the MTS at the time. There were parallels to the commercial world. Today, not so much. We're stuck in 1977 it seems like sometimes.

I'd like to see hams experiment with eNodeB's in some of this spectrum, do something relevant to the networks we use today. You can do this with GNU Radio and a few hundred bucks worth of hardware. But there seems to be little interest in this sort of stuff, my local ham club meetings are the same as they were 20 years ago - FM repeaters, HF, etc. DStar is spooky future stuff to many of them.

 

It doesn't, and never did. Amateur radio operators are secondary users of that spectrum.

Using it for appropriate applications - including repeater-to-repeater links, satellite communications, and digital communications, including but not limited to mesh networks.

We serve the general public interest. It is the cell phone oligarchy who are a special interest.

Its job. To promote amateur radio, protect the amateur radio community's interests, and ensure that we're able to continue to advance the radio art.

 

We should all start by asking ourselves this question: How does allowing amateurs to keep their x.xx GHz band(s) serve the public better than re-allocating all or part to commercial telecommunications?

Wireless telecom employs a lot of people in this country. The products and services are in use by millions of consumers (including practically every amateur radio operator).

How do you reason that it’s more important that a tiny fraction of hams (who are already a tiny fraction of the population at large) be allowed to keep the x.xx GHz as a playground for their hobby?

This is the question that Those Who Decide will be asking. Our answer had better be compelling if we hope to hang on to these bands. “We were here first!” is probably not going to cut it.

 

The users are the users. Absence of users is their decision. You can't blame them or anyone else on what they WANT to do.

Or NOT do.

I have yet to see a post that says..."hey, I wanted to do a mesh network on 3300 MHz, but I was not 'enabled' to do so.

You just have to accept that Part 97 licensees do not, as a whole, value the USE of 3300 MHz.

Why are you diverting us to hate and vilify the carriers? This post is delivered THROUGH one of those carriers....overall I am satisfied, as are most of the tens of millions of such carrier customers. Why? Because they vote their carrier with their wallet and feet. Compete. Deliver. That's how free markets work.

Why are you trolling us here in this forum-- given your obvious agenda against the carriers??

Has anyone actually responded to your assertion that we should join a coalition against the carriers? And that we are "anti-ham hams" unless we do??

 

Ironically, 3400 to 3500 MHz would be absolutely perfect for LTE experimentation. It's a TDD LTE band (band 42, 3400 to 3600 MHz) in other parts of the world and supported on the US version of the iPhone 11. Talk about availability of equipment! Also could be an excellent way to get kids involved in ham radio.

 

They are not really our bands. We just get to use them.

Kind of like your house, You do not own it, You are just renting it from the government.

 

Here's a block diagram of my GNU Radio based Internet backbone link. 30 Mbps in 8 MHz of bandwidth (actually 16 MHz, since it's full duplex). It can go to 50 Mbps with higher latency. Right now, it's just between two rooms in my house at about 10 milliwatts, but I can say I'm on the band.

Just when we can start doing advanced things on 9cm with SDR technology, it's being taken away.

 

Actually, I own multiple houses, some with HOA's/CC &R's,... and the arrl can keep out of my signed legal contracts.

Just call me another anti-ham

 

ARRL is working on this

 

Of course they are. The article says that they'll file a comment.

Still, probably would have been better if they had "worked on this" a year and a half ago when the Congress passed that bill telling the FCC to do this.

 

They knew about it.

http://www.arrl.org/news/ntia-targets-portion-of-3-4-ghz-band-for-potential-wireless-broadband-use

 

Whay can't you just do that on a different Part 97 allocation? What aspect of the 3300-3500 MHz band uniquely enables your ability to pursue your technological improvement? Is there one?

I am not being difficult: I am focusing you and others on the thought process of the FCC . If we cannot answer these questions compellingly and in multitudes of examples, we have absolutely no hope of retaining even a slice of the 3300-3500 MHz band.

73
Chip W1YW

 

If I read correctly he needs 16 MHz of bandwidth, 3.4 GHz would be wide enough for more than a couple of such signals. And 5.9 and higher bands would.

 

These are wonderful avenues that should have been brought up years ago, as I kept on warning about the possible loss of the 3300-3500 MHz band.

Efforts by a few to undermine my credibility--indeed to humiliate me on at least one occasion, by some respected Part 97 licensees muted, IMO, my ability to have such warnings taken seriously.

And now look where we are..

At this point, potential doesn't matter. Kinetic does.

If we lead with a defense of 'what could be done', we are wasting our time.

The FCC's job is easy. They essentially have a script of potential 'acceptable' back-down points and have lawyers review and vet. If they don't get them --compellingly--in the NPRM response, they are free to pursue the initial plan without modification. They are certainly fair. Its really amazing that we don't, as a whole, see exactly how their thought process works.

It couldn't be any more transparent.

Again, do NOT lead with the word "HOBBY".

Never ever.