FCC Orders Amateur Access to 3.5 GHz Band to “Sunset”

Doubtful. You have a bunch of millennials who only want fast internet on their phone 24/7 no matter where they are. Most could probably care less about weather forecasting.

 

What? Is it safe to assume they didn't give it back?

 

The FCC virtually begged for us to show why we had to use SOME segment of 3.3-3.5 GHz. Instead, the ARRL insisted that it was already being used in toto ---and we shouldn't revise our secondary usage to a far smaller allocation than the 200 MHz.

SO, we are losing it all.

Hey--why listen to me? Wadda I know?

 

I am of the opinion that the FCC has now set a powerful precedent in deconstructing many of the Part 97 allocations.

Our inability to defend against that indicates unrealistic assessments on our use and need of microwave spectrum, and failure to present solution sets in the face of NPRM assertions of future revocation of spectrum.

Put in the inability to call things what they are--'sunsetting'.

The ARRL needs to reassess its spectrum defense policies immediately--if the ARRL is to make assumptions about being the 'national association of amateur radio'.

They certainly, as an association, did not succeed, with this revocation. The fact they they and others were warned on the right tact to take from the getgo--and ignored or rejected it as an implementation--obviously proved fatal in this challenge.

When I look back at the absolutely (IMO) horrible and public comments taken against me --particularly by K5XS and WY7BG-as I warned and advised on this, I can only say, IMO : GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER when it comes to constructive spectrum defense.

The messenger is NOT the enemy.

And by attacking the messenger, you incentivized the messenger to stay out of formally assisting in a solution.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Chip, sooooooo right!

Need a new organization to do amateur spectrum defense. Those bozos are losers, I'm being polite.

 

Actually they are well qualified legally in dealing with the FCC. The problem is 'implementing' the desires of the ARRL board as a whole.

This board (as a whole; with individual exceptions) is either incapable or unwilling to successfully engage with the FCC-- IMO.

Certainly one should , at the least, re-consider donations specifically targeted for the Spectrum Defense Fund, IMO.

Your opinion may differ.

73
Chip W1YW

 

I really question what the heck happened to my contributions to spectrum defense fund. They sure didn't do anything for 9cm band, just rolled over and played dead.

I called ARRL several times to try to figure out:. What exactly are the Spectrum Defense folks actually doing, why don't they publish say a quarterly newsletter or something detailing their activities, successess, challenges, etc. What's the budget for this effort? Where did my contributions go?

Never got answers for any of this. As far as I can tell, Spectrum Defense fund contributions disappear in to their general fund.

Fegeddaboutit!!! I'm done with that.

 

The best way to defend spectrum is to use it. And the second best way is to flaunt how it is being used.

We lost 9cm because the bulk of the users are using PRC built equipment, thereby neither 'enhancing the radio art' nor 'providing a pool of operators skilled in the art'. Granted, building a network is fine, but, clearly that is a bit behind the times compared to extant RF technological innovation.

I am not saying the fine folks who did this aren't doing great work; it is the bulk of us not supporting it --and enhancing it--that's the problem.

If we had suggested consolidating 9cm as a Part 97 band with less than 20 MHz bandwidth, that favors innovation, we likely would never see 'sunsetting'.

AND the number of USERS PER KHZ is amongst the lowest in the radio spectrum.

 

What makes you think the FCC would entertain such a proposal? Here's what they said in the NPRM:

"Notwithstanding the utility of amateur operations in this band, operators that chose to construct networks in this band did so despite the fact that the amateur allocation was secondary and entirely subject to current or future primary operations. As part 97 of our rules makes clear, amateur operations are a noncommercial, voluntary service. Amateur stations are permitted to operate in many different bands; amateur stations operating in the 3 GHz band have several other nearby bands available to them with similar propagation characteristics, such as the nearby 2 GHz band and the 5 GHz band. After the authorization to operate sunsets for secondary amateur licensees here, amateur stations will continue to have available these and other bands that are allocated for amateur use."

In other words, you amateurs have plenty of spectrum at 2 and 5 GHz, so go pound sand.

 

You're getting a $100 coffee mug. That's it.

 

A story about the 70cm band in a far away place that I happen to be from

New Zealand hams originally had 420 to 450MHz 70cm band. Some years ago there was growing pressure for UHF spectrum. Govt decided to take 420 to 430MHz, and in return gave the ATV (amateur television) groups UHF TV channel 39 (615MHz) in return. This happened in the 80s I believe, I was licensed in 1993 and ATV was very active in some areas on 615MHz by then. This predates any UHF TV broadcasting as far as I know at the time, due to sparse population and challenging terrain VHF low band (46 - 68MHz - 3 channels) was heavily used, and VHF high band (175 to around 240MHz from memory) with 11 channels.

The ATV groups moved to channel 39, where they happily experimented for many many years, including running ATV repeaters, sometimes near locations where TV broadcast sites were which later turned out to be a bonus. Once UHF TV broadcasting started up and most people had TV sets with UHF and UHF TV antennas they would accidentally find the ATV repeaters on channel 39. One of the clubs I was a member of at the time used to get random inquiries from the general public that would find the ATV repeater when tuning their TV sets. So hams in ZL had years of experience building up ATV equipment, an ATV allocation where the public could find it, and we were on the verge of affordable LDMOS power amplifiers for 615MHz that could make more than a few watts. All was well in the world until.. The digital TV transition came along. The government decided channel 39 was a no go anymore and simply deleted the allocation over night, told everyone to shut their gear down, and offered nothing in return, not even a DVB-T channel. In the end, the ATV groups and hams in general got dealt a real blow. There was some talk of being allocated some space in the 5m band for ATV, but nothing came of it for one reason or another, and I think the ATV folks were done with it over losing channel 39 - they had to shelve decades of effort, hard earned skill, knowledge and home brewed equipment. The only thing hams got out of the digital TV transition was use of the 6m band back when the low band VHF analogue TV transmissions ceased.

Also somewhere along the way 440 to 450MHz was taken away because it wasn't being used, all the 70cm repeater activity is between 430-440MHz. And to add some insult to the injuries as if that's not enough, secondary user devices were later permitted in what was left of the 70cm ham band 430-440MHz. In the early 2000s the 70cm national link (a network of around 30 RF linked 70cm repeaters that spans the entire country, Google map here - https://goo.gl/maps/dQygNNwzi2y , official low res map here https://www.nzart.org.nz/info/repeater-maps ) had to have all the frequency pairs re-worked at great expense, effort and nationally coordinated among a large number of clubs in order to avoid growing levels of interference from these secondary devices (junk like weather stations etc). One might say just add CTCSS, due to the way the RF linking is done that was not a practical solution. When the national link was first conceived and the spec defined in the 80s, the 70cm band was barely used, so it was essentially a clean slate design with an otherwise empty band. That's not the last spot of trouble that system has faced, the most recent was our state run TV broadcasting/transmission entity, which is a state owned enterprise (so the govt expects it to make them money) decided the national link repeaters located at their TV broadcast sites had to pay commercial rates or get out, with out some of these high and remote sites, the linking would not be possible with out adding a large number of additional links to bridge the gaps, luckily a compromise was found at the 11th hour and they got to stay..

That's the story of the 70cm band in ZL, danger at every turn it seems. Anyone who knows more about it feel free to correct me, this is stitched together from 1st and 2nd hand information from different people over the years and what I can remember

Unfortunately NZART (NZ equiv of ARRL) has no where near the clout that the ARRL does, and in the case of 3.5GHz ARRL can't win 'em all either.

 

I have a complete collection, every year, all in a row. Simple things for my simple mind.

 

Link please.

 

The other important thing, in my opinion, is that in the original FCC NPRM, they brought up moving amateur operations to other microwave bands.

In the ARRL filings (three of them, one last February, and two ex-Partes in September) none of them even addressed that issue of whether there was any reason that amateurs operations on 3.4 GHz could NOT be done elsewhere. Since we did not seriously object to moving to other bands, it left the FCC an easy opening to do exactly what they did.

Having noted that ... I don't think it would have made any difference. Even if amateur were primary, it would not have made any difference. Clearly the "fix" was in well before the NPRM. was released. By at least a year. Congress "somehow" was convinced that as much spectrum as possible should be dedicated to 5G, they made a law and told the FCC to make it happen, without any wiggle room where amateurs were concerned.

 

Paragraph 37 on page 14.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-138A1.pdf