ARRL to Avoid the Proposal of Eliminate 3.3 – 3.5 GHz Amateur Radio Allocation . Very important every ham operator must sign this petition to Avoid the eliminacion. 11/25/2019At its December 12 open meeting, the FCC will consider adopting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to remove the amateur radio 9-centimeter allocation at 3.3 – 3.5 GHz. ARRL plans to comment in opposition to the proposed action. According to an FCC “Fact Sheet,” the proceeding WT Docket 19-348, “Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1 – 3. GHz Band,” is a follow-on from the MOBILE NOW Act, approved by the 115th Congress, which requires the FCC and the US Department of Commerce to make available new spectrum for mobile and fixed wireless broadband use. It also requires the FCC to work with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to evaluate whether commercial wireless services and federal incumbents could share spectrum between 3.1 and 3.55 GHz. NTIA manages spectrum allocated to federal government users.hq@arrl.org“This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would propose to remove the existing non-federal allocations in the 3.3 – 3.55 GHz band as a step towards potential future shared use between federal incumbents and commercial users,” the FCC Fact Sheet explains. “By taking the initial step needed to clear the band of allocations for non-federal incumbents, the Commission furthers its continued efforts to make more mid-band spectrum potentially available to support next generation wireless networks — consistent with the mandate of the MOBILE NOW [Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless] Act.”The NPRM proposes to clear the 3.3 – 3.55 GHz band of existing non-federal users by removing non-federal secondary radiolocation and amateur allocations [emphasis added] in the 3.3 – 3.55 GHz band and to relocate incumbent non-federal users out of the band. The FCC would seek comment on relocation options and “transition mechanisms” for incumbent non-federal users, either to the 3.1 – 3.3 GHz band or to other frequencies, and on how to ensure that non-federal secondary operations in the 3.1 – 3.3 GHz band will continue to protect federal radar systems.Regarding the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite Service allocations, the FCC NPRM asks whether existing amateur spectrum in other bands might support operations currently conducted in the 3.3 – 3.5 GHz band. The 3.40 – 3.41 GHz segment is designated for amateur satellite communication. “We seek comment on the extent to which the band is used for this purpose, whether existing satellites can operate on other amateur satellite bands, and on an appropriate timeframe for terminating these operations in this band,” the FCC NPRM says.Also at its December 12 meeting, the FCC will consider another NPRM in WT Docket 19-138 that would “take a fresh and comprehensive look” at the rules for the 5.9 GHz band and propose, among other things, to make the lower 45 MHz of the band available for unlicensed operations and to permit “Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything” (C-V2X) operations in the upper 20 MHz of the band. The FCC is not proposing to delete or otherwise amend the amateur allocation, and it would continue as a secondary allocation, but the primary allocation for 5.850 – 5.925 GHz would change.The amateur radio 5-centimeter allocation is 5650.0 – 5925.0 MHz, and the NPRM, if approved, would address the top 75 MHz of that amateur secondary band. While no changes are proposed to the amateur allocation, anticipated more intensive use by primary users could restrict secondary amateur use.The band 5.850 – 5.925 GHz has been reserved for use by dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), a service in the intelligent transportation system (ITS) designed to enable vehicle-related communications, the FCC said in a Fact Sheet in WT Docket 19-138. “The Commission initiates this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to take a fresh and comprehensive look at the 5.9 GHz band rules and propose appropriate changes to ensure the spectrum supports its highest and best use.” ARRL also will file comments opposing any changes affecting the 5-centimeter amateur allocation.Both draft FCC proposals are subject to change prior to a vote at the December 12 FCC meeting, and there will be opportunity to file comments and reply comments on the final proposals after they are released. Please share this info with other ham radio operator. please click to sign the petition to Avoid the elimination of the 3.3 - 3.5 GHz band elimination 73 from : WP4KY Wilberto Noriega Click on the Link below to sign the petition. http://chng.it/vjTcnpxn
This topic is very well discussed elsewhere: see-- https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/they-are-coming-for-our-bands.681814/ I will not sign any such petition. Why? Because for 15 years I have warned about the loss of the 9cm band and I was humilated and scorned--even today!--for doing so. Here's an example-- https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/amateur-radio-spectrum-protection-act-of-2005.69150/page-8 The best you can do is divert the proposed allocation LOSS at 3300-3500 MHZ with a request for a SUB-ALLOCATION of 5-20 MHZ of the 200 MHZ (present) allocation. In doing so , any effort to make a compelling case will require a 'spectral-use' analysis detailing actual on-band operation from monitoring at several locations. You will have to ALSO show that the 9cm band is UNIQUELY ENABLING for support of the proposed sub-band. I will not assist in this effort given the abuse I have been exposed to for being the 'messenger'. Also, if the ARRL does NOT show OTA evidence of spectral-use, they are wasting our time: I can guarantee that so-called 'opponents' will SHOW evidence of spectral-'non-use'. I am not one of them BTW. Again don't shoot the freakin' messenger....you should be thanking me for the insight on how this can play out....despite silly comments like: "Chip, you clearly don't understand how the spectrum allocation and authorization processes work." --the reality is that I understand them very, very well. LISTEN TO YOUR FRIENDS!
The petition title is not in English. This could be a deceptive link with possible cyber security ramifications. I regret clicking on it and certainly won't sign for fear of a malware attack.
Another reason not to, is that it is not even a petition. The linked change.org document is merely verbatim copy of the Nov 25 news article from the ARRL web site!
Merriam-Webster.com The document doesn't request anything. Thus, it is not a petition. An example of an hypothetic petition would be along the lines of: We the signatories of this petition formally request that the FCC make no changes to the Amateur Radio Service allocation from 3.3 to 3.5 GHz band. We make this formal request because [fill in the blank], [fill in the blank], and [fill in the blank]. Detailed usage data gathering by [name of tbd organization] show that this band is heavily used by the Amateur Radio Service performing unique advanced technological and public service activities in accordance with the Service's Part 97 regulatory mission, specifically [fill in the blank], [fill in the blank] and [fill in the blank]. The 3.4 GHz Amateur Service allocation is the only frequency band where these important Part 97 activities can take place. No other band is suitable because [fill in the blank], [fill in the blank], and [fill in the blanl]. Elimination of this Amateur Service band will do irreparable harm to the Amateur Radio Service' ability to meet it's critical mission as required in Part 97, and will fail to provide equivalent or greater benefit to the public than the proposed alternate allocation for 5G commercial services because [fill in the blank], [fill in the blank], and [fill in the blank]. Thus, we appeal to the FCC to retain the Amateur Service allocations in the 3.3-3.5 GHz bands. So all you have to do is [fill in the blanks]! Note: - Multiple specifics of things we use the band for - Data to support these claims - Call out what we do that is unique to 3.4 GHz - Explain why no other band will work - Detail why reallocation to 5G will be less benefit to the public - Repetitious use of the word "Service"
As per the 'petition'... I would be very interested in seeing that data that "shows that the 9cm is heavily used " by Part 97....
Submitting comments to the FCC, preferably ones that are uniquely-written, and are not copy-pasted boilerplate text, is likely to be far more efficient than signing a random petition.
Yes. Change.org petitions are more about the ego of the people starting them, than actually effecting any change. The FCC NPRM is clear enough about what they need to see to pull back even a little from their proposal. Comments need to address that to not be ignored. The hypothetical petition I posted above would also serve as a template for an ECFS filing but as suggested, just copy and paste won't be effective. The FCC NPRM process is not a democratic vote, especially where there are billions of dollars and millions of consumers involved. For this situation in my opinion it would be better to get behind a few major organizations such as ARRL. Versus spamming the ECFS with the nearly illiterate naive & emotional nonsense we typically see.
Alert every Ham Radio operator must sign this petition Telling others what the "must" do is getting off to a very bad start IMO.
Submitting comments to the FCC is the only way the FCC will review it and only when they ask for Public comments Now a good petition to the New leaders of the ARRL might draw attention????????
