FCC Notice of Proposed Rule Making: Hams to lose access to 3.3 - 3.5 GHz?

My use of 3 GHz spectrum in my business is a matter of public record. What isn't clearly visible is the help I've given to hams in using it under Part 97, or my other wireless consulting work (which is proprietary).

However, I'm not going to waste my time responding to trolls with clear vested interests. It appears that this particular troll's goal is to poison discussions that involve hams retaining existing spectrum or obtaining new privileges, so that he personally profits.

The moderators should take notice.

 

Yeah, there's just too much for my brain to wrap around on 5G LTE. I'm about to go sacrilegious on you now: Even though I was a cellular engineer in a previous life, I own no cell phone now. (OH MY GOD! NO CELLPHONE?!!! ) You must fight to get a decent contract, or get a free Obama phone. Either way, the call drops as if a tech doesn't like what your saying and hits the reset. Always conflict. Try to get into the land-line system and nearly always at 4pm on a weekday all you get is a fast busy. Cell to cell? Fine. Same fast busy if you dial back into cellular from the land-line switch. I'm just tired of it. Very tired. The companies say they want reliability, but they allegedly hire unqualified beginners without degrees or electronics/HAM experience to retrain in their own image, and we the consumers regret it.

So, I just gave up.

Yes it would be somewhat cool to keep the segment near Doppler Weather Radar and microwave ovens. We used to bring a waveguide out the bottom of an Amana Radar Range and use that for experimenting. I forget how many watts that is, but it must be over 450. Big 24' dish and you're smokin the airwaves.

 

Words to live by.

 

I have no vested interest arising from any decision, one way or the other, in the re-allocation of 3300-3500 MHZ. That is now, as you say, a matter of public record.

Public record: I do NOT personally profit from ANY changes in the allocation of Part 97 bands. NONE. That is a false statement. It is now on the public record.

It is important to understand that a person who would make such false statements may not be capable of making correct statements on behalf of the amateur radio service. For example: his statement about 'O2 absorption at 5GHz' has been demonstrated to be false, here, and is not a correct assessement of why 3GHZ is better than 5 GHz. Having that fact allows fellow hams to make informed comments of their own, without promulgating false ones.

This is a clear example of an effort by Brett, WY7BG to discredit my statements, by making a false statement about me. WY7BG has already shown that he wants to stop ALL statements that do not agree with his position.

The fact is that I do, on occasion, use the 3300-3500 MHZ band as part of the Part 97 mission, to try out --my-- antenna ideas.

I imagine a few of those ideas could be used for WISP, for example. They could be used for lots of things. THAT is exactly the point of 'advancing the radio art' in Part 97.

Does that mean I have a vested interest in WISP?

There is no record that I am aware that WY7BG is a user of the 3300-3500 MHZ band for Part 97.

WY7BG has refused to answer the qustion: " have you used the 3300-3500 MHZ band"?

I have nicely asked WY7BG to address me with requests and you refuse to do so.

No problem for me; but for your sake, I suggest WY7BG concentrate on the issue at hand, not on ME.

As I said, 'carry on'.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Microwave ovens use a small , somewhat low gain horn to direct and feed a resonant cube with standing waves. The actual ERP delivered to the cavity is moderate, but the standing waves give it at least a 20 dB boost.

The magnetron on microwaves is very messy and has spurs all over the place. Its only the horn resonance that suppresses out of band transmissions. So be careful when using a microwave oven as an 'exciter'.

 

Yeah yeah...some bad guy could kidnap your wife or a child...that would be change. Is that good for you?

I think we need to not accept every change until we examine it for validity. Yes change is constant but I would guess many result in bad things like laws with unintended consequences...

 

I am trying to say this without calling you personally out, but people who post "YAWN" in a post to show they're bored are funny. Who in hades cares that they are board? Don't read, don't comment. In my years on the Internet, I have never found one person who gives a flying firetruck that someone is bored. The people posting YAWN are just not worth caring about, present company excluded.

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.............In some cases..........

 

5G Really seems all about creating wealth linning some ones pockets ...

As transmissions go shorter and shorter wave length down on terrafirma you need ever more towers to pump out signals eg like power Poles .. fortunately this visual pollution has been solved by putting power cables under ground ...

Or in the case or the Orange mobile net work in UK Creating towers that look like trees to try and hide their towers ... So i wonder what the 5G transmitters will look like ... Seems we are told it will work fine in Cities but Out in the wide open Country side ... not so well ...
Guess we will just have drive Towing a Mast on a trailer to receive phone calls lol ... T

Then again rejigging with 5g devices is going to line some ones pockets wonder if it will line mine lol

Probably not

 

Hmm, I wonder why the NTIA chiefs keep resigning.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...um-adviser-stepping-down-agency-idUSKBN1YK1OO

 

YEAH and don't forget I'm talking 1970's generation ovens, so nothing that applies to them is really valid anyway. Might be fun, though, all that adjacent Wi-fi and geek operation plopped all over our bands being inundated with spurs at 100x their power level, heh heh heh.

 

She recused herself from spectrum work because her husband works at T Mobile

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/tech-...ting-chief-recuses-herself-on-airwaves-issues

 

The NPRM is posted on ECFS this morning at FCC-19-130A1.pdf

As expected, as with the "fact sheet" version of Nov 21 - specifically, it still completely eliminates the 9cm ham band.

Comment period 30 days after federal register publication. Reply comment period 60 days.

The EFCS filings are viewable here: ECFS Filings 19-348

You can file comments here: Submit a Filing. The Proceeding is 19-348

 

Thanks for the helpful links, Ron.

73
Chip W1YW

 

From the NRPM:

This is what they specifically ask for comments on:

They added this paragraph, asking for comments concerning the "transition", that includes a couple of items amateurs should comment on, that could argue in favor of a "carve out":