So in the future, someone could tune up in this band and knock out service for a bunch of nearby 5G users?
Well, FT8 doesn't consume much bandwidth, so just give Amateurs 1 kHz on every band and all will be well!!
There are some very bright people trying to help us with future spectrum . The past failures need not be the recipe for future efforts. Enough said on that.
5G is an incredibly clever and optimized set of technologies. One of the aspects it leverages is to deal with reflected signals as part of the overall gain of the system (MIMO) . That, and other aspects of the modulation methods, have spectacular dynamic range, which at the low end is hampered by passive intermodulation products (PIM). These PIM products are super weak---150_ dB down from the transmitted power, but amazingly a brick wall limit. When there are strong or even moderately detectable transmissions even 100 MHz out of band, these PIM products become a huge limiting factor to the received channel capacity of the 5G system. So the bit rate goes down and the system gets bottlenecked. This is a simplification--I am sure others may choose to jump in and elaborate or correct my somewhat clumsy explanation here.... You don't knock out 5G users per se, you cut the effective speed.
The FCC does not OWN these frequencies. What makes them think they can sell them off and kick out the current allocated users? They need to be stopped. This is one reason I have very little respect for the FCC and other government agencies.
while we are on the bandwagon of rants, back in the late 50s when the FCC decided to create a new, short-range, personal communications band that everyone could use, instead of putting this idea to work on a freq band that accommodates the needs of the general public by putting a VHF band to use, they went ahead and took one of our dx bands, 11 meters, and made a short-range communications band, 5 watts, SHORT RANGE? what a mess they created. But it took them many years to figure that out and it's still is a mess. So what is my point? if we amateur radio operators don't start using ALL of our bands, the FCC will start taking more. For example, up in Vermont and New Hampshire, listen to the 2-meter band and see how quiet they are most hours of the day.Back in the day when 2 meters was very busy in both states, used to feel safer traveling knowing there is someone there ready and willing to help if need be. Today, if you didn't have a cell phone to call 911 and all you had was your 2-meter FM rig hoping that the local repeater still has its auto-patch to help you and you called for help...............
What's the alternative? Before auctions, the FCC used to just pick who it thought was the best candidate for the spectrum. How much graft and corruption do you think would be involved in that kind of spectrum allocation system?
The military lost 100 MHz of spectrum to 5G as well. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/08/pentagon-gives-up-huge-slice-of-spectrum-for-5g/ In a utilitarian sense, the spectrum planners should allocate the spectrum so that the greatest number of people derive the greatest amount of benefit from it. One can argue whether or not the FCC's decisions are motivated by such considerations. But assuming the FCC is acting on behalf of the public, it apparently believes that even the military's need to operate important equipment for defense surveillance and communication is less important than the benefits of new wireless services. It's not surprising that even if amateur radio operators heavily utilized the spectrum, it would be hard to justify Part 97 allocations if military allocations are being displaced. For me, I think a primary concern is whether or not the services provided on the auctioned frequencies will be made available to the public at a reasonable cost and therefore justify the public benefit. When spectrum is auctioned for such staggering amounts, those costs, as well as the costs of deployment of 5G networks, must be recovered. Furthermore, the barriers to entry to the market are so high that only a few players can successfully bid and offer such services. When so much a public resource is reserved to be exploited by a very few, it seems likely to be not operated in the interests of the public.
It's the same spectrum. The military lost 3450 to 3550 MHz. Amateur Radio was sharing the lower 50 MHz (3450 to 3500 MHz). The name of the original docket was "In the Matter of Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1 to 3.55 GHz band". The carriers would have gladly taken the entire 450 MHz, but the NTIA was only willing to release 3.45 to 3.55 GHz. They did a survey of radar stations and that portion of the band was the most lightly used. Here's the survey (starting on page 58). https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia_quant_assessment_report_appendices.pdf
Yes, you are absolutly right. The "problem" is the growing of the possibilities. But the crowd of the users stays the same. And you cant be on all bands at the same time. And when some users like the DMR, they stay at just one frequency. Personaly I am not at the HF. Maybe a bit 10M (depends on the conditions) and for experiments in the Greyline at 80M, thats it. And the rest of the time I stay in the upper bands. Do different digital things (I like my little own repeater fitted with the full Pi-Star and C4FM and do some SSTV), go analog F3E or have a try with satellite operations. Thats what I do mostly.
Hmmm. Given that assertion, one could argue they have no right to regulate the amateur frequencies as well. Ergo, amateur licensing is invalid and we can use the frequencies as we please. Chris
After spending 20 years in wireless telecom, I can truthfully say that spectrum is the true currency for the carriers. They trade it like Bitcoin. The FCC is the new cartel of the airwaves, and these auctions continue to bring incredible revenues into the federal black hole. They are going to keep that up until it's all gone - allocated.
