AMATEUR RADIO SPECTRUM PROTECTION ACT OF 2005

I know you use the words, but you combine them in a way that makes no sense here, IMO.

Start over and try again: what are you trying to say? Are you asking what the problem is with HF RFID (near field vs far field reads, for example?)

Are you talking about fleet management?

It's kind of like a cryptic flow of thought unimpeded by context or relevance, IMO.

If RFID is important to discuss, then run the topic by Fred and start a thread.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Wow, Ed, that sure put the astonomer back on his 'scope.

Nice to see and hear some real physics for a change instead of just hot air from the "pair."

73s, and good DX from your outback trips.

Lee
W6EM

 

Hey Lee--

Why don't you start a new BPL topic?

Lotsa co-ool stuff happening with second generation BPL.

GOOGLE just popped $100 mill into Current Comunications. Earthlink is there. IBM is about to commit.

Looks like unlicensed BPL is here to stay and the big boys have the proper perspective.

And ready to obey the rules of Part 15.

Great stuff that!

73,
Chip N1IR

 

So Lee,

You now have TWO new topics tp place up on the board: RFID and the latest on BPL.

That means we can focus on SPA 2005 here, without you taking us to digressions.

So, back to topic: the reason we need SPA 2005 to 'protect' 200 MHz of ham spectrum from 3300-3500 MHz is....?

The reason this bill meets the needs of the American people is.....?

The reason we need to 'protect' THOUSANDS of MHz we don't USE .... for emergency communications is...?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Chip,

If you disagree with the bill, write your congressional representative and say so. Have you done that? Or are you satisfied with riling up folks around here as your contribution to the cause of the right thing being done?

And if you think any particular band would better serve the public interest by being reallocated away from the amateur service, file a petition to that effect with the FCC. I think you'll get at least one favorable comment filed by your like-minded friend here. But I promise you this: If you have it wrong, and if we should have held on to that spectrum for experimentation, public service, or any other reason, we'll never get it back once it's gone. If the rest of us have it wrong, trust me. It will be taken from the amateur service as soon as the political or financial interests of those who want it build sufficiently to influence the FCC.

I truly think you have a "Pollyanna" view of how the process works, and I think you underestimate the potential negative effects of your uninformed posts here.

Bernie K5XS

 

Hi Bernie,

I think I have a very experienced viewpoint. I resent the fact that you think I am naive. Nothing I have said even remotely allows that conclusion.

Ham radio has it's place. I don't think that place is in a 200 MHz passband of a band that is rarely used. No one has made the case, save for your  allusions to some supposed threat to experimentation, that we need, or will need 200 MHz of that band. Ever.

Again: we don't NEED 3300-3500 MHz.

We don't USE 3300-3500 MHz.

We MAY NEED a small chunk, say 1-4 bands of 5 MHz apiece, spread betwen 3300-3500 MHz

And, yet, this Bill protects a resource we don't use, save in very rare cases, with very small numbers, and with a very small fraction of that passband. It has not been used to save any lives, or addresses any need in the event of national danger.

No, I won't write my congressman, Bernie. I wont waste his time. Why? Because this is a Bill that is dead, dead, dead.

If no one can argue with fact in support of this Bill, then don't waste your congressman's time.

Bernie, are you threatening me? Exactly what are the "potential negative effects of (my) uninformed posts?"

And, I think you are dead wrong Bernie; I am of the opinion that all I do has impact. In fact, if you were still at your old job, I believe I could share with you some of that impact.

Impact is a very good thing.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I don't have it wrong.

I have respectfully invited fact that shows me wrong.

Where is it?

Bernie, I do believe YOU are wrong to assume that all hams support the 'locking in' of 3300-3500 MHz.

Just because it takes some boldness to express the appropriate and valid opposing view here, doesn't mean many others don't share it.

Just so you know, Bernie, I have the ability to be on 3300- 3500 MHz for experimental purposes under Part 97. In fact I do a fair amount of experimentation. Under no circumstances would I, as an informed, and expert experimenter, have the need for the full 200 MHz under Part 97. I don't know anyone who does, under Part 97.

Or shall we suppose there will now be some specious argument about the fact that I am an experimenter?

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Chip,
Feel resentful if you wish. That doesn't change my view of your naivete. Is yours truly an "experienced viewpoint"? Kindly share with us your "experience" in spectrum management and in negotiating spectrum allocations and authorizations.
You do not understand how spectrum politics works. And based on your reluctance to communicate with your representative regarding a bill that you disagree with enough to devote who knows how much time to arguing about suggests strongly to me that you are far more willing to carp and argue than you are to constructively engage in the process that will effect the outcome of all this.
The notion that you would feel threatened by my comment of negative effects of your uninformed posts speaks volumes. No, I am not "threatening" you (Sheesh!). The negative consequences I am pointing out are that naive, ignorant, and uninformed posts such as yours may well be played back to us as other interests seek what spectrum we have access to. To my knowledge, I have never threatened anyone but the enemy when I was on active duty in the military.
Bernie

 

No; I am not a 'mere' goofy ham. I am one of the success stories of the 60's era of ham-menship that led to today's technology leaders. I couldn't care if you think that's arrogant or not, frankly.

I am not naive.

And times have changed.  As hams, we have our place, but there are many other wireless paths for the above, and a lot more people needing spectrum, and that includes spectrum we, as hams, don't use.

Maybe you are too close to the issue to adduce what is in the best interest of the people of the United States as a whole. My opinion.

I am whole heartedly of the opinion that we should share these comments publicly. For example: there can be NOTHING better than to show as DATA, PUBLICLY, how we have used the 3300-3500 MHz band; and what the projected need is based upon extant trends and historic data.

PUBLICLY sharing that data  can represent irrefutable fact that a resource we are allotted is being used --and being used to the public's benefit. Or NOT being used.

So where is this DATA to support this?

If that data is presented, then I think all should take pause--including me--to support this Bill, if it shows use of the band in a compelling way.

So where's the DATA?

I submit it does not exist in any compelling form (because it is indicative of sparse activity, rare activity, with very limited use of the passband), and thus we cannot support holding onto the full band. Therefore, to pass SPA 2005 does the public a vast injustice, for it 'locks in' spectrum we do not use in full; havent used in full, and will never have a need for in full.

And there's a PUBLIC statement.

It is your privilege to disagree with it-- or to the benefit of expanding my knowledge and the knowledge of others, provide data which shows that the 3300-3500 MHz band is being used fully in the very best interest of the public with respect to ham radio.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

It is immaterial to me if:  (I) 'know how spectrum management works'.

It is immaterial to me whether my opinion on this matter is expressed to Congressman Markey, or Congressman Tierney.

It is for those who support this Bill to provide COMPELLING FACTS AND REASONS why this Bill is in the public interest.

I have brought up the 9 cm band as a useful example to illustrate a profound weakness in the premise of the Bill.

I have invited information which seeks to reveal--if possible-- that the 9 cm band IS being used fully and with the public's interest at heart.

No one has provided, nor apparaently can provide, any data that supports the use of the full 9 cm band.

So, here is the logic:

1) the Bill is designed to protect extant spectrum in full;
2) To justify such a request, one must show that said spectrum is being used and requires said protection;
3) There is no evidence that the 9cm band is being used by hams in any way that remotely relates to it's HUGE 200 MHz allottment;
4) Therefore the allotment cannot be justified as being 200 MHz at 9cm;
5) Therefore, it is not in the public's interest to protect an allottment that is not being used;
6) Therefore, the Bill cannot pass as it is not in the public interest.

How's that for 'spectrum management'?

Bernie, I have no argument with you. I do, however, expect you to take the info I have provided and use it constructly in future versions of a Spectrum Defense Bill.

If that future bill discusses MINIMUMS of spectrum allottment for the amateur radio service--as opposed to locking it in as is-- I will support it.

As written, this bill has no hopes of passing. My opinion.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

Then, Bernie, facts can easily reveal if they are naive, ignorant, and uninformed.

In fact, if this is the case---and obviously I believe it is not-- then I have done you a great service by providing counterarguments to the SPA 2005 bill that, if so weak, make it just that much easier to pass: factually incorrect responses are very easy to cite and discard.

Thus we should see what the outcome is.

I have nothing more to add, other than have a pleasant day and gud DX.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

What an interesting revelation. So, the Chipster does a fair amount of experimentation on 3.3-3.5GHz under Part 97. Hmmm.

Would that experimentation be undertaken at his place of employment or at his residence or other non-business site?

I think it is really appropriate that the Commission is taking pecuniary interest activites of licensed amateurs to heart.

Not in the sense of curbing truly independent, non-business development activity later becoming commercial, mind you, but the other way around. Business interests should not be allowed to use the amateur radio service to accomplish business-related experimentation. IMO, every bit as pecuniary as Baxter Associates being plugged on a so-called bulletin station.

Of course we need to preserve and protect the spectrum for genuine experimentation. But not for business employees to use their amateur licenses to develop company products. Or, to develop technologies that fit in the amateur bands and claim that they want the spectrum for their developed application(s) because, in their opinion, there is scant amateur use.

If businesses want to experiment, they can always apply for experimental licenses or comply with 47CFR15 et. seq.

Lee
W6EM

 

Ah, so the comic relief is back...

Think about this: If you test an antenna at ham frequencies, and conducting transmission under Part 97, then you're using it as a ham And better yet...what if the transmit antenna is already a ham antenna:-]?

So if you yack away on your transmit antenna (with your transceiver, so you hear with that antenna), and the AUT is compared to a standard, then, by golly, you've done a real experiment and had a dandy good time at the same time No one is doing contact with the fleet, nor ordering pizzas. Not even an 'eyebank' in sight!

Yep. I experiment with antennas.

Sure do!

All kinds, shapes, frequencies.

Big ones, small ones.

Red ones. Blue ones.

One antenna. Two antenna. Three antenna Four.

Five antenna six antenna seven antenna more!

I am ham. I am.

Not to be confused with green eggs or spam.

Yep I am. Ham.

 

Enough hot air to hoist a field day crew of 5 with gear and generator to the stratosphere.......

 

Not one of those 'goofy' hams, eh. This is quite a testimonial....

Lee
W6EM