They are coming for our bands !!

The VM program does not in any way 'police'. The VM's report superlative operators, and 'actionable' violations of the Part 97 rules, to the FCC via the ARRL. The FCC is soley responsible for enforcement.

The OO program is dead. VM's are not OO's. VM's are 'good guys/gals', not 'mean parents'. In fact, you may never know who is a VM or not. The idea is to be helpful and low key. Not 'band cops'.

The FCC is targetting its efforts for enforcement in Part 97, not decreasing it VM's are ears for that.

 

Thanks for clarifying Chip. Certainly "police" was an unfortunate loaded word to use. The key is public engagement to enable government authorized enforcement.

I see the VM program as similar to the DHS "See something, say something" campaign, except the VM's are specially trained as spotters, and are also proactive with complimenting good practices.

IMO someday VM program duties ought to be expanded to include reporting not only hams causing out-of-band QRM but also unauthorized band intruders and linked with the ARRL Field Org TC and TS positions for tracking and resolving other RFI sources.

ARS voluntary self-training as such also provides other spectrum users like radio astronomers a pool of skilled and equipped people available to assist in maintaining order for them as well. They should remain allies with the ARS in spectrum planning.

73, John, WØPV

 

The VM program is task with reporting violations of Part 97 allocations-- that includes unauthorized use of ham bands by non-Part 97 licensees.

They are just a lot harder to identify

Russia is now using OTH radar on the ham bands...presumably Atlantic Ocean based. They are loud (at times) even on 80m in mid-America.

Radio astronomers are late to the table in getting beyond denial IMO--they are still furious with me from my MERCURY editorial on interference more than 20 years ago.... I said to be realistic about the ongoing increase in legal spectral use outside of the RA allocations.

Some, including K1JT, have expressed compliments on the 'aperture engine' arrays options (see the new patent), for future radio telescopes. I first disclosed this to them a while back at a radio astronomy symposium. There is also an email list for radio astronomer hams (I think its actually approaching 200 members) where I posted a few weeks back.

The big issue for future radio astronomers in North America is getting site approval. I have spent quite a bit of time on this, and Reservation land, and Baja California, are the best, but not easy, options. The BLM is NOT your friend, IMO, despite the fact that about 60% of the desert SW and W is 'managed' by them. The USG is by far the largest land owner out West.

73
Chip W1YW

 

truer words were never spoken

 

@W1YW

Chip, just curious: does your company market any fractal antennas for ham use? Primarily HF... Did not see any on your website. Would a fractal be usable on, say 80 meters?

 

It was not a genius at the FCC, but rather a lobbying genius working for the mobile carriers. They've been hiring economists to lobby both the FCC and Congress for decades, knowing that if they can exhaust the resource of spectrum (radio frequencies themselves are not a resource, but spectrum - AKA permission to use them - is) they can foreclose competition. When they do, they usually quote an economist named Coase who claimed that auctions - a system in which "them what gots, gits" - were the proper way to allocate spectrum licenses.

In fact, the foreclosure value of spectrum - the money that can be made by keeping others from using it - is greater than its utility value (the amount of money that can be made by using it when there is no scarcity). So, it is profitable for the mobile carriers to hoard as much spectrum as possible, and then waste it - using it far less than we hams use even our least used bands. This is already occurring. But even as it does, the mobile carriers' lobbyists are hard at work, falsely claiming to Congress and the FCC that the US is "losing the race to 5G" and that the only cure is to give them yet more spectrum to hoard and waste.

 

The employees do not want to do ham antennas, because the margins are razor thin, and the 'care and feeding' (read: on the phone ragchewing) is too costly in time spent. About every 18 months I bring the issue up again and each time they cite Cushcraft and Hy-Gain brands (which were sold off to MFJ) and Traffie Hex-beam as examples as to why they don't want to do it. And they google my experience on the net, which a military customer recently characterized as "brutal" . And I wasn't looking for sympathy !

We haven't done HF commercial antennas for a while, but there is renewed interest by our customers as of late. We might do that, but said antennas will not be aluminum pipe. I wish the niche antenna companies that do HF Yagis well, and have always done so.

Sorry to sound negative on this-- I actually have wanted to do ham antennas for quite a while. It just doesn't make a lot of business sense to those whose livelihoods depend on me.

 

Brett,

The facts are far more interesting and complex than your 'they b-a-a-a-d' portrayal of the carriers.

Its not about SPECTRUM. Its about SPECTRAL EFFICIENCY. From what I have seen, the effort to eake out every bit with extant spectrum has been the operative effort--before spending money on new spectrum. I cite last week's talk by Tom Marzetta at the Radio Club of America as compelling fact in support of that.

We are 'losing the race for 5G' because the infrastructure is behind the capabilities of the latest hand held smart phones--and all the CUSTOMERS want to be connected : when gaming; when in their cars; when on the planes; when watching Taylor Swift in concert; when cooking dinner.

New spectrum is just one of many solutions that the carriers are using to meet the needs of their customers which-- may not be YOU-- but is me, my son, my wife, my brother, my friends, my coworkers, my neighbors, and on and on and on.

YOU may not need NEW SPECTRUM in Laramie Wyoming, but its outrageous that you would opine to essentially deny that option to folks in Boston, New York, Los Angeles, and even Spunj Alaska, and Truth or Consequences New Mexico.

The fact is that there is , IMO, NO ALTERNATIVE --WISP ain't it-- for 98% of the US population than a carrier based network. The CARRIERS are doing what they need to do to meet the needs of US. Even when it means CREATING A 4th CARRIER--which they did by GIVING UP SPECTRUM to DISH.!!

Also, the CARRIERS ARE A PRINCIPLE EMPLOYER of many,many hams. And in this 'seller's market' of low unemployment, they have other options to walk, and for the most part, do not. Swallow that.

Hams are not about to be the 'people' of your alleged 'coalition' against the carriers. Stop trolling us here. Make us THINK, present FACTS, but don't TELL US WHAT TO DO.

We are not ants in an ant colony.

OK?

Sheesh!!

 

Chip, no problem. I expected that. Ham radio is a niche market and and as such we sometimes don't seem to realize that. We, as a group, are a cantankerous bunch of cheapskates and its a miracle that anyone makes ham gear or puts up with us!

Over the years, you have certainly tried to help us and received a whole bunch of crap here on the net. Kudos to you for persevering.

Thanks for the response and maybe someday a ham version of an HF fractal will appear...

 

I need to make something clear: its been a while since I have whined about ham radio being 'anti-fractal'. Fractal antennas are now well over 30 years old, and are mainstream in the scientific and technical literature; the patents; and the market place. I am grateful that I was recognized with the Hamvention 'Technical Achievement Award' last year. Hams are amongst my best friends.

I LIKE hams!

I am much obliged for the compliments, but its important for others to realize that the multi-decade S&&&storm I dealt with is all too common for new innovations, and new innovations/paradigms seldom are adopted on short time scales. Here's one of many recent examples--

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticl...t_honc&uac=61232MR&spon=7&impID=2168190&faf=1

Frankly, the dissing I dealt with cost me my academic career many years ago, but I have no interest in returning as a professor (I get requests frequently -- I look at what goes on at various campuses in 2019 and cringe--witness the communistic/fascist shenanigans (IMO) at Oberlin, Mizzu, Evergreen and even my alma mater Brandeis (which is also doing some good things) and so on.)

I believe ham radio is vital to our national interests. What's missing right now is HOW WE VIEW OURSELVES compared to how the world sees US.

73
Chip W1YW

 

This makes perfect sense up until the last sentence.

You have presented no reason whatsoever why WE "need to form a coalition ("against the greedy carriers") to protect our spectrum".

You "PROTECT" spectrum by USING IT.

Our use of 3300-3500 MHz has been supremely MARGINAL; there is nothing on the 9cm band that UNIQUELY ENABLES Part 97 licensees, and we do not have the spectral use studies that demonstrate the viable use of this allocation to Part 97 licensees.

So....a coalition countermands these FACTS???

So why the *^^ should we join some "coalition"?

Brett, if you want to 'do something', then 'leader' for retaining a small portion of the band for Part 97. You can see I suggested this often, indeed, (first) almost 15 years ago(!)--to wit:

https://forums.qrz.com/index.php?threads/amateur-radio-spectrum-protection-act-of-2005.69150/page-7

If you get your apparently personal agenda against the carriers out of the equation, I will support you in an effort to save a smaller portion of the 9cm band.

 

Brett WY7BG gets it! This is all about the FCC's auctioning off spectrum so that two or three huge companies can prevent competition going forward. 5G is a farce, oversold by orders of magnitude. There are legit additional uses for the 3.3-3.5 GHz band, which could be more compatible with continued Amateur use of at least part of the band, but the FCC wants to hand over every MHz to the spectrum oligarchy, who would use it at high power in urban areas and leave it fallow elsewhere. We should probably fight to retain at least part of it, though, even if only 10-20 MHz.

 

Does this thread remind anyone else of the 1960s song "They Are Coming To Take Me Away" by Napoleon XIV?