Threat to Amateur Radio 23cm band

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

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: K5AB-Elect-1
  1. WY7BG

    WY7BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    Unfortunately, the opposite is even more true. When hams become very active on a band, the corporate barons which "own" nearby spectrum (they don't really own it, but act like they do) complain that hams might, or do, interfere. This is especially true if the corporations have cut corners and built their receivers so poorly that they can't filter out a signal a few MHz away. So, more activity is not necessarily an answer; in fact, it may spark moves to wrest spectrum away from hams.
     
  2. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Thanks Lou--

    As many know there is a new group of ' Volunteer Monitors' that is now starting, through the ARRL and (indirectly) for the FCC. One of the tasks of the VM's is to cite good operating practice, rather than just to find infractions. This invokes a lot of listening--beyond operating.

    One key spinoff is you can see how 'active' the bands are.

    In prep for this I've done some stats on band use. Granted, propagation is a big factor, but one cannot ignore the general large decline of activity beyond propagation.

    For the moment, let's just state that the stats show the obvious, and showcase the obvious solution: GET ON THE AIR.

    • MAKE A FRIEND:)
    • CATCH UP WITH A FRIEND:)
    • CHASE A NEW LAND:)
    • EXPERIMENT WITH A NEW TOY:)
    • CHECK YOUR EMERGENCY CAPABILITIES:)
    • LEARN SOMETHING NEW:)
    • HAVE FUN!

    Whatever floats your boat, ALL operating is important:)
     
    G3SEA, W9EBE and KA2FIR like this.
  3. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Brett,

    Where do you see this??

    In the US, such complaints MUST get handled through the FCC and are highly documented . Can you point us to where these registered complaints have come from the "corporate barons"?

    The main complainer (as it were) about US hams--and this has been rare--is NTIA affiliates, not "corporate barons".

    Again, if you have data showing anything beyond an anecdotal limit, please state it here, or provide a link.

    Look-- we know you run a WISP site, and many WISP businesspeople have expressed dissatisfaction with the carriers ("corporate barons") over CBRS and other issues. That,IMO, is no reason to raise Part 97 as a surrogate for such quibbles.

    Thanks,
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2019
  4. WY7BG

    WY7BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    More unwarranted ad hominem personal attacks. Again, people: don't feed the troll. Just ignore him.
     
  5. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Where was there an "ad hominem personal attack" or a "troll" ? I mean other than your own posts.

    Someone disagreeing with you, or asking for a factual basis of claims you make, is not a personal attack or a troll. Inconvenient, sure, if it damages your argument, but certainly far from an attack or a troll.
     
  6. WY7BG

    WY7BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    By definition, it is argumentum ad hominem when someone says, "You are X, therefore your argument is invalid." Trolls frequently engage in argumentum ad hominem, because their goal is not to have a productive discussion but to stroke their own egos. As an online moderator with experience dating back to the time before the Internet (I moderated dialup BBSes back in the day), I can say with assurance that it's always best not to engage with them or even acknowledge their comments. That's "feeding the troll." It's what they want. Unless the moderator does the right thing and bans them from the forum, "feeding the troll" is exactly what participants should NOT do - at least if they hope to have a worthwhile conversation.
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  7. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am not a troll.

    I am not targetting, making a personal attack, nor being argumentative.

    I, and others, are asking you to explain and expand upon your positions.

    Why?

    Perhaps you have some fact or insight that has not occurred to us.

    In the context of this thread, I asked you , very nicely, to suggest some ways that we can pre-emptively prevent revocation of ham band allocations. What you came back with was some wierd statement about "corporate barons" that just doesn't make any sense, nor is supported by facts made known to us. Then you tell "everyone" what to do, rather than letting "everyone" make their own minds up.

    Please: help us help you. If you have some positive steps to thwart future allocation revocation, then kindly throw it out in the ring and let us run with it.

    If you choose NOT to present them, then just say 'I'd rather not'. I'm just fine with that, as are, at least, some others.

    We are all unhappy about any attempt to take away ham allocations. We should be uniting on this.

    Happy to see you engage in a worthwhile conversation on this topic.

    OK?

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  8. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Except, that is not what has been happening here.

    What has been happening is, (1) you make unsupported assertions, (2) someone calls you out on it, (3) you respond by calling them trolls. Hardly what I'd call "worthwhile" OR "conversation".

    By your own definition, above, you would seem to be the troll !
     
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ron,

    I am puzzled( by Brett's) assertion that an increase in OTA activity would lead to interference that would then get the 'corporate barrons' to demand revocation of ham bands.

    I just can't logically process the notion that an increase in OTA activity would hasten revocation of spectrum.

    The assertion posed is allegedly supported by the claim that the receivers are so poor as to produce this adjacent frequency interference. That is news to me. To wit: " corporations have cut corners and built their receivers so poorly that they can't filter out a signal a few MHz away. "

    The only place I have seen any claim of adjacent band interference is at all is the top end of the wireless band adjacent to the 600 Meg T-Mo allocation. That was solved by a low pass TX filter, without any FCC complaints that I am aware of . In fact it was handled in a very friendly manner, I was told. And it happened at a rock concert, not with ham operators.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Aug 24, 2019
  10. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I agree. It doesn't make any sense to me either, as stated.

    But since he refuses to explain it, or back it up, it's hard to tell what he really is getting at, and if it's important or not.
     

Share This Page