AMATEUR RADIO SPECTRUM PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

I skimmed thought the ARRL contest logs and see about 60 callsigns having confirmed Q's in the 9cm band during the June '04 and September '04 weekend contests.

10 grids on that band is quite impressive.

And Chip, I have been busy with a project and simply do not have time to debate you. You might see the announcement in a few weeks.

 

Thanks Ron,

That info will get the ball rolling

73,
Chip N1IR

 

That's a good start Terry.

Of course, we need to add a couple of other relevant tid-bits to our understanding:

1) There are about 700,000 licensed radio amateurs in the US;

2) 60 hams is less than 0.01% of the licensed radio amateurs in the United States;

3) these contests are the most active periods of operation, therefore the 60 hams on 9cm (3300-3500 MHz) represents the HIGH END of the number of hams on 9cm. On an average basis it is probably much less;

4) With this incredibly small number, each ham could be given almost 4 MHZ of INIDIVIDUAL PER HAM without any hope of cross-congestion;

5) It is an extraordinary embarrassment that there is lobbying for spectrum PROTECTION when we clearly do NOT use the spectrum even sparsely. It is time to give it up, in portion, to a more realistic passband that meets our needs and then some.

6) The 9cm band is not a 'national park' where electrons are free to change spin states without the hand of man.

I think we should be ashamed, as Americans, to ask Congress to pass a law that we CANNOT justify.

Show me why I am wrong.

How do you justify locking up spectrum when only 0.01% of licensed radio amateurs use it?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Bernie,

You are avoiding the crux of the issue: why should we defend spectrum we do not use?

Again: I kindly request your thoughts on the amateur radio use (or rather lack of it) of the 3300-3500 MHz band, and on what basis may we justifiably claim that it needs 'protection' under this bill.

Many thanks,

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I couldn't agree more.

Of course, you can't be referring to me. I have never claimed to be a P.E.; I refer to my Ph.D. in context and very sparingly; and I am well past the age whether I care to be seen as brilliant or not. In that context it is only output that counts--not potential.

Remember that, boys and girls --Be KINETIC: not POTENTIAL.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Chip,
The crux of this issue is the same as the crux of every issue you weigh in on: You use this forum to argumentatively grandstand. That's the real issue. You surely seem to be the odd guy out on EVERY issue. Can we all be so wrong ALL the time? Are we all that ignorant?
But to answer you...Any spectrum, 9cm, 6cm, you name it, is a precious resource. The fundamental question is whether the public derives value for its investment. In my view, and I believe in most amateurs', the spectrum we have access to is well entrusted.
Just because a small percentage of hams are using any segment doesn't mean it isn't producing high dividends in experimentation and for other amateur purposes. If one looks retrospectively at developments that have come through amateur radio, by definition they have typically come from less used spectrum. Early experiments in radio were not brought about because 80% of the amateur population was involved. They came about because a small percentage of amateurs were using it. If the number of amateurs accessing a particular band at the high end of our allocations is small, I think it's indicative of fertile ground for experimentation, and the amateur service is one of a few bastions of genuine RF experimentation. I say bravo to our pioneers, but maybe you'd do a utilization survey to see if they are experimenting enough, and if not, withdraw the allocation. That's dumb.
I think the public gets good value for our allocations. You are a tiny minority that obviously disagrees. Too bad your words will serve the interests of those who wish to carve up our spectrum.
Maybe when 11m was handed to the Citizens Radio Service you agreed with that too. Or maybe when a chunk of 1.25m was given to UPS you agreed too. And I think I've read here in another of your missives that you think BPL--noisy and unreliable as it is--is a good thing too.
One has to wonder if any of those reallocations actually served the better public good, and one has to wonder if you have the best interests of amateur radio or the public in mind. I don't think you do.
Bernie

 

Bernie,

Please keep to the subject. Stop trying to shoot the messenger: as I've told you I do have a passion for debate and discussion on select subjects. I don't always take the opposite side. Oftentimes, I agree, and do not feel I need to add anything else, so I don't post. I certainly don't take the opposite side on every subject.

It is in bad taste, IMO to assert that I argue the opposite on everything...it's just not true.

OK: I buy into the precious resource, and so on. So--are we using this precious resource or piddling it away?

It would be helpful if you could point out why the very limited activity of radio amateurs on the 9 cm band REQUIRES 200 MHz of avaliable spectrum?

Why can't we get by with, say 5 MHz? or four bands of 5 MHz across the spectrum?

What is unique about the 9cm that requires experimentation THERE only, and not elsewhere? What is this experimentation ? OFDM? UWB? CogRad? Spread Spectrum? Is it truly being done by amateurs, or by academics and professionals with ham licenses? Wouldn't such experimentation be better served with EXPERIMENTAL licenses?

These are important questions for us, as a service, to answer.

I would like to know what the answers are, and that is why I am asking.

Can you help?

Thanks for responding so far.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I want you all to appreciate how lucky you are to have Ron and I willing to stick our necks out to get the truth across.

Some of you have said absolutely disgusting and horrible things about me. Some of you even have defamed me.

What you failed to do was appreciate the truth when it is presented. That is a terrible shame, IMO.

We all are concerned about the welfare of ham radio. BUT--you MUST try to take the perspective of the 99+% of Americans who AREN'T HAMS, and whose welfare must be upheld.

When we act as a selfish special interest group, all it accomplishes is to reverse the spotlight back at us. It glares: 'what are these hams and why do they need all that spectrum'.

Be a little more tolerant in the case of opposing views, and try to make a fist before you type.

73,
Chip N1IR

And Terry, I got wind of your little project.

 

I agree 100%.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Bernie,

Ham experimentation ain't what it used to be. In the last ten years we have been leapfrogged by many , many superior technologies that millions can use for free and without a license: hams become incidental and derivative users rather than pioneers. Oft times, we are viewed as a niche market for the technology developed for someone else.

Two generations ago, that technology might have happened first with hams, on a lab bench, in the garage. Now it happens in RAND labs from venture or government funding. In fact we now have so much NEW technology on 'radio' that they're battling each other out! Sort of like the AM/FM debate to the 100th power.

Heady times!

I agree that if this was 30 years ago, and there were many MORE hams on 3300 MHz, then we'd be in a compelling position to hold onto it in full.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Chip,
I don't understand what you say when you refer to "superior technologies" to amateur radio. Amateur radio isn't a "technology," it's an application of a variety of technologies and a 600,000+ person application development lab for technologies. But it isn't a "technology."
And to suggest that only with some kind of head count can one justify a particular band of frequencies is to suggest that a few pioneers can't make a difference. They have, are, and will make differences.
It's clear you are bent on the notion that we have "too much spectrum," and I think that's a preposterous (and particularly dangerous) idea. American citizens are getting excellent return on the spectrum they entrust to us, not only for experiementation purposes, but for emergency response communications and for international goodwill as well.
Bernie Skoch

 

Ron,
The FCC doesn't "weigh the benefit." They respond to political pressure from the Congress and from interest groups, many driven by significant financial interests.
There have been many decisions--some recent--which call into question the whole process of rule-making and spectrum allocation. If you aren't famililar with the whole 3G and 4G spectrum auctions (and you may be), the results, and the pitiful consequences I would encourage you to look at them. They are a clear example of spectrum decisions being made not by apparent public interest, but by other influences. Look too at the digital TV spectrum reallocations that have been slipped and slipped again. The continuing influence on that process hasn't been entirely "public interest."
I think we're done debating this. If you and Chip think any particular band is being wasted on the Amateur Service, there is a procedure to file for a reallocation away from the Amateur Service. I doubt you'll make many friends in the amateur community, but if you truly think that's the right thing to do, you ought to do it. I think you're wrong, but if I held the view you apparently do, I'd think less of myself if I didn't act.
Bernie Skoch

 

Hi Bernie,

If you use something it is, de facto, defended.

Neither Ron nor I in any way said that a band or bands are wasted. What we said is that you can't justify locking in a PASSBAND for the 'band' if you don't use it.

I have made several reasonable comments with respect to 9cm, and no one has produced viable aruguments as to why we NEED to hold onto a  FULL 200 MHz allocation.

SPA 2005 would require that the FULL 9cm band either be protected or replaced with EQUIVALENT spectrum. That is  untenable, especially as the full 9cm band neither meets the mission of the ARS nor practical usage.

It was our decision and we made it. Now we need to give other users a shot at it, and keep some fraction for our modest future use.

And of course, the bill is dying for this reason, among many.

On another note, I would like to remind some hams that freedom of speech does not assure the right of freedom to defame. When you make demonstrably false statements, presented as fact,  that clearly seek to injury the reputation of someone else, then you have defamed. The exposure you place yourself in can amount from tens of thousands to millions of dollars.

For example, the statement by Dr. Edwin Jones, M.D.  (AE4TM) is defamatory.

Make your point without defaming someone else.

You don't have to agree with someone, just don't use libel as a tool.

Ask your lawyer if you wish.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

"Chipaphobia"?


HAHAHA!

Good one Ron.

LOLOLOLOL!!!!

BTW, just so everyone knows, I have no phobias and certainly did not admit to having any.

I am in very good health for a 50 year old. I have no mental health issues nor any record of such.

I had my tonsils out, though.

 

To expand on the comment you refer to Ron--

Actually, I think HF RFID is a crappy idea. It doesn't work that well, either.

I think that the future of HF includes far more Part 15 devices though.

But prognostication is not the same as desire; it isn't my personal preference to see that, and I don't see how anything I have investment in in any way is affected by that, if implemented.

Hope that helps our congressional aides.