ad: GNOHF-1

Threat to Amateur Radio 23cm band

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by G4TUT, Aug 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Left-2
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
ad: Subscribe
  1. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Be aware that the FCC has not approved use of the Galileo E6 signal in the US.

    http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-approves-use-of-galileo-global-navigation-satellite-system-in-the-us

    "The Order does not grant access to the Galileo E6 signal, which is transmitted over the 1,260 – 1,300 MHz frequency band, since this band is not allocated for RNSS in the US or used by the US GPS to provide position/navigation/timing (PNT) services. The FCC pointed out that granting access to the Galileo E6 signal could constrain US spectrum management in the future in spectrum above 1,300 MHz, where potential allocation changes are under consideration.

    The omission of the E6 signal also means that radio amateurs would not have to protect Galileo receivers from interference on 23 centimeters, which has been a significant issue in Europe."

    Here's the complete FCC order.

    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-158A1.pdf
     
    KA2FIR and K6CLS like this.
  2. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I think the avaliability and the need will force that 5 year time scale.

    I actually hope I am wrong;-)

    The 'carrier landscape' is increasing now, after years of consolidation. Just watch.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
  3. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The Galileo mess is a splat we did NOT produce...

    :)
     
  4. KA2FIR

    KA2FIR Ham Member QRZ Page

    Who’s the troll?
     
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Name of troll appears to be ..."everyone".
     
    KA2FIR likes this.
  6. AG6QR

    AG6QR Subscriber QRZ Page

    It's not just a matter of their intentions, it's also a matter of our own.

    The US has presidential elections every four years, and congressional elections more often than that. We can radically change policy much more quickly than a new satellite navigation system can be deployed.

    If Europe fails to deploy an independent system today, they are taking a gamble that we will continue to want to be their ally, and we will continue to be the kind of nation they want to ally themselves with, for the next several administrations, at least.

    Even though I firmly believe we will continue to be a worthy ally, I don't blame them one whit for carefully hedging their bets and putting their own interests first, just as we put our own interests first.
     
    W1YW likes this.
  7. WY7BG

    WY7BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    Alas, I agree. 220 MHz is a great band and Icom should have supported it. It's left a HUGE opening for competitors.

    73 de WY7BG
     
    KA2FIR likes this.
  8. WY7BG

    WY7BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    This is, in large measure, due to bureaucratic and regulatory blunders over at Fox Charlie Charlie.

    The spectrum management systems required by the CBRS rules are just barely being put into place. And the companies which are running those systems are trying to profiteer from them, requiring every user to pay a monthly tax, per device, to use the spectrum. Needless to say, this will discourage CBRS adoption.

    What's more, the FCC has pandered to the large mobile carriers by enlarging the geographic areas in which CBRS channels will be exclusively licensed - effectively turning CBRS from a "Citizens' Broadband Radio Service" into a "Cellular Broadband Radio Service." This, again, has discouraged use of the band as a whole. Why invest in a band if the cellular providers are going to shrink the amount of spectrum available to you more and more over time, while you - whether you're a commercial user or a noncommercial one - have not a chance of getting one of those licenses?

    In short, the problem with CBRS - as with the threat to hams' allocations - is corporate influence. Corporations are greedy for spectrum - both to use for themselves and to hoard so as to lock out competition.

    Amateur radio will soon have to steel itself for a fight for its very existence.
     
    KA2FIR and W6RZ like this.
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I see no evidence that greed is what is driving the allocations question. And the FCC should be faster, but they are hardly the enemy by any definition.

    The driver is obviously the needs and urgency of over 280 million users of the smart phone era in the United States.

    A great example of a nebulous solution that has not lived up to promises is the WISP(A) system, which may or may not make the 'last mile' broadband solutions viable in rural America.

    Much of this will, IMO, be moot when the SAT constellations take over.

    As to "existence"-- use it or lose it.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    KD7HCW likes this.
  10. KD7HCW

    KD7HCW Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    This is pretty much the answer for where we have primary allocation. The frequency vultures are always circling, and when there's dead air it just gives them a reason to claim that range like a medieval land grab scheme. I work both HF (digital / SSB) and VHF/UHF (FM repeaters), and while HF is busy especially on weekends, I'll drop my call to dead air several times a day on the repeaters to no reply. They're basically used for nets around here. I wish more people would just turn on their radios in their car or while they're futzing in the garage at home to keep the bands active.

    Sorry for the slight digression, but W1YW made an important point in general, and I wanted to vent where I saw the biggest risk from lack of use.

    73,
    -Lou
     
    W1YW likes this.

Share This Page

ad: M2Ant-1