They are coming for our bands !!

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

Please describe how we serve the general public interest? The public is interested in consuming media on hand held screens almost all their awake hours. Some might even in their sleep. Soon we wont need screens, just brain implants...

Anyway, markets determine need, and politics bend to those markets...

 

Now that is funny. Me don't think the public gives a crap what kind of equipment you have, how sick you are, or how many contacts you made during the last waste of time contest. That is ham radio today. Just a hobby and nothing more. Stop and think about this. What communications medium today do you use the most? It is not your radio. You are using it right now to read this.

 

^ And the public does not care about having ham folks with HTs on a Bike Run call in Bike folks that can't ride anymore and need a cab ride in "GRID UP" situations. Frankly the Bike Org Lay persons would be better served using Zello on their cell phones like Push to talk then a 3rd party next to them with an HT 2 meter radio... IMHO... I think the reason Bike Orgs use hams is they don't want to do that work that they should be doing... IMHO...

I also do not believe in my observation that such radio practice will enable such Hams to function well in a GRID DOWN situation either.

However there are other Ham Radio organizations that practice Grid Down situations many days per week...

Meanwhile there is a Pileup on 7177khz...

 

Yes, I could have used 5.7 GHz for the upper band. The frequency choice of 2305 and 3456 MHz was to avoid interference to/from WiFi. Also, I have more antenna gain, more output power, less coax loss and less propagation loss at 3456 MHz. But I'll admit that's not enough to defend the band.

The main point of the post is that technology has enabled hams to effectively use these microwave bands just as they are being taken away. Analog Devices has just released a new SDR transceiver chip that can create a 200 MHz wide signal. It's expensive now, but soon I'll be able to transmit these huge signals with off the shelf equipment.

https://www.analog.com/en/products/adrv9026.html

 

Amateur radio is more than a hobby; it's STEM. And needs to be protected and promoted as such. With all of these naysayers, I think we need some leadership within the community to ensure that our endeavors can continue. Again, we need to form a coalition to protect our spectrum.

 

I sense a lot of naivety in the amateur radio ranks of today.

Many seem to believe that it still is 1947 and that amateur radio still is relevant as some training
ground for radio operators for the next war, which were the ulterior motives behind the
positive outcomes of the 1947 WRC and some subsequent.

In reality however, amateur radio has largely lost its relevance in first-world countries.
Very few amateurs there apply the principles behind our definition in the Radio Regulations that give the hobby its "Raison d'Etre". (Yes, amateur radio is a "hobby" by its international definition, but uses regulated spectrum which makes it a "service" in "ITU- and FCC-speak").

The justification for amateur radio in the 1947 sense may still exist in a diminishing number of third-world countries, where mobile phone network penetration and quality may be unevenly distributed, and where deregulation has not yet been so prominent. Traditional amateur radio needs a quite tightly regulated telecom environment to survive.

Faced with competition for spectrum that has considerable political and financial "clout", amateur radio must in some way justify its existence.

One major problem is that organised amateur radio tends to live in the past, where spectrum privileges were awarded just for "good looks". This was especially prevalent when the UHF/microwave allocations came to be.

Decades of "youth programmes" have utterly failed to deliver, the median age is increasing and in many countries can the fraction of amateurs below 30 safely be neglected. Also, the dilution of the exam standards have fostered a generation or two of applicance operators that actually are clueless about the inner workings of their equipment despite passing exams that have very little real value beyond their face.

The spectrum bureaucrats of the world may be a lot of things, but they are not stupid.

They compare "reality" and "marketing" all the time for those that compete for spectrum, and usually have guidelines or templates in terms of national or regional spectrum policies that originate from the government ministry level. Very diverging requirements have to be accomodated within those policies.

One thing the bureaucrats do not like is when "marketing" differs too much from "reality".
Spectrum "needs" have to be at least somewhat founded in realities.
Amateur radio has problems in these aspects, there are many "needs",
but when "viewing the hand", most have been quite unfounded.
Actual spectrum occupancy is sometimes shown to be only a small fraction of the claimed levels.

It should be kept in mind that amateur radio does not get any special treatment any longer.
The harsh realities of spectrum politics affect stakeholders of all categories nowadays:


"Definition of Radio Frequency Management:

Radio frequency management is done by experts who meld years of experience with a curious blend of regulation, electronics, politics and not a little bit of larceny.

They justify requirements, horsetrade, coerce, bluff and gamble
with an intuition that cannot be taught other than by long experience.”

- Vice Admiral Jon L. Boyes U.S. Navy

(From a presentation at a recent ICAO Spectrum Management seminar)

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

Radio astronomy faces different yet similar pressures as the ARS. They are a smaller group but may be seen to swing with more clout due to the obvious scientific research basis. However the overlaps in education value between RA and ARS should also be obvious. Hopefully those negotiating for spectrum for the ARS forge mutually beneficial alliances with such organizations.

In that regard here is an interesting presentation about international spectrum management by Darrel Emerson @AA7FV, DJ0OE, etc. formerly of NRAO, closing with this quote,

“IUCAF members had to evolve from being starry-eyed astronomers as they encountered a world of politics, lobbying, entertainment, threats, espionage and bribery. On one occasion, an offer (in Geneva) of two million dollars in cash “to shut up” proved no match for dedication to the joys and excitement of twentieth century astrophysics.” Brian Robinson, “Frequency Allocation: The First Forty Years.” Ann Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 1999, 37:65-96

73 and Happy Thanksgiving, John, WØPV

 

The radio astronomers are in a similar predicament as amateur radio.

Sometimes they however have the backing of national science foundations which
may exert considerable influence behind the scenes.

The extent and effects of this influence may be very dependent on the actual "mood" of the regulators
and may range from indifferent to enthusiastic.

I have seen this from the inside as a member of the Swedish National Committe for Scientific Radio (SNRV),
where various aspects of radio science are represented and some of the preparatory work before the WRC:s
is coordinated. In past years, radio astronomers and radio amateurs most often were on very speaking terms,
as many also were amateurs themselves.

However, as some of the driving forces that were radio amateurs themselves retired, the support waned.
In current CEPT and ITU-WRC work, the radio astronomers through the CRAF often file standpoints that oppose amateur radio spectrum use. They see amateur spectrum use near or in frequency ranges of interest
as completely unnecessary potential interference sources.

This is a quite distressing development. Yesteryear, amateur radio and radio astronomers were able to join forces as weak-signal and non-commercial spectrum users, but now we are sometimes seen as competitors.

For how long any support for amateur radio at the WRC:s from the deregulated administrations may be obtained remains to be seen.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

To belabor the cliche, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As the scramble for spectrum devolves into more dog-eat-dog tactics, it would not be surprising that the Big Dogs would lobby or tactically bargain that alliances between smaller stakeholders are actually competitive in the hope to disrupt them. And if that doesn't work, then bribery?

Of course passive users like radio astronomy could see encroachment of increasingly UHF active ARS and ARSatS users as problematic. But that doesn't mean the relationship has to be mutually exclusive or non-collaborative.

The trend toward deregulation by spectrum administrations also corresponds with less direct rules enforcement. More services will become primarily self-policed. Witness the new collaboration between ARRL VM program and the FCC.

It would be foolish for serious next-gen leaders in radio astronomy or other non-commercial spectrum users, to neglect the benefits that being aligned with the much larger group of radio amateurs, technically skilled in terrestrial RDF and RFI abatement and with established enforcement connections, could bring to defending their cherished "quiet zones" and shared spectrum from intrusion by sloppy commercial/government users and general renegades.

 

What's different for radio astronomy is that the majority of most-used observatories are fairly or supremely radio-isolated and are less sensitive to horizon-oriented 'interference'. They can also EDIT OUT sporadic interference when detected.

Most of the radio astronomy bands are actually outside of the frontier areas, as the equivalent spectrum in-use for RX is redshifted, and thus out of the legal allocations.

Satcom based telecom will be a challenge for a small segment of radio astronomy.

To be honest, radio astronomy has a huge issue as it has few recent technological 'spinoffs' to justify the allocations. IOW: 'what good is it?; you saw a black hole shadow....and now what?' This comes about because of almost a religious sense of closed-ness in which you are either 'in' or 'out'.

I am considered 'out' because I 'sold-out'. This despite new patent 10483649-- which is a key factor in enabling future radio astronomy and SETI observatories.

Not everyone adhers to this silly closed culture, which is embraced predominantly by millenials and gen-x radio astronomers. They do not embrace the culture of W9GFZ, nor W8JK.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Karl,

In the US, that is a myth and not true: in terms of material covered and effort needed to secure an entry level Part 97 license, it is far, far harder to 'get into amateur radio' than it was 40, 50, or even 60 years ago.

Indeed, the magnitude of the initial material covered today s the biggest impediment to attracting youth to Part 97 in the US.

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but these are the facts.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I think this is the best guide as to what is covered for the entry level Tech License: https://www.kb6nu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/2018-no-nonsense-tech-study-guide-v1-1.pdf

Art

 

Our spectrum will go the same way everything else is going... To the highest bidder. What genius at the FCC thought auctioning off a public resource for some $couple million pittance was a great idea?

 

Chip, in the press release
https://www.businesswire.com/news/h...e-New-Generation-Satellite-Communications-IoT

You mentioned solar panels and satellites. Nothing about radio astronomy and SETI.

 

I didn't mention the press release at all.

Why would you do a press release targetted to radio astronomers? They know about it already by other means.

I mentioned the patent in this thread.

See the specification, and claims 1,2,3 vis a vis radio astronomy, SETI.

Patents often issue on more than one enablement of an invention; indeed each patent claim is itself describing a separate 'invention'.

I've been getting roughly a patent a month; have additional 5 NOA at moment. My press releases are targetted for specific markets, not for every invention. Some you reach in other ways.