ad: Schulman-1

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

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by WY7BG, Dec 6, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
  1. WY7BG

    WY7BG Ham Member QRZ Page

    [​IMG] The FCC has just given notice that, at its December 12th meeting, it intends to consider a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in which it boots hams from the 3.3-3.5 GHz band. The band would be repurposed, and auctioned off, for so-called "5G" mobile service. (Note that there's really no new technology called "5G;" it's just 4G, also known as LTE. But the Commission - several of whose members seem willing to grant any favor requested by the mobile carriers - has gone along with the ruse, supporting the carriers' claims that there is a "race to 5G" which the US absolutely must win lest it become an economic wasteland.)

    The Notice of Proposed Rule Making can be found at

    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360941A1.pdf

    The ARRL has already announced plans to oppose the change:

    http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-to-oppose-proposal-to-eliminate-3-3-3-5-ghz-amateur-allocation

    Alas, the weeklong "sunshine period," during which the FCC does not accept comments on items to be considered at an upcoming meeting, has already started. This means that the Commission won't entertain comments on the item, except by invitation, until after the meeting. However, hams should chime in thereafter regarding this attempt to evict us from a band which is extremely useful for digital communications, including inter-repeater links and mesh networks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2019
    N3HOE and KC9SIP like this.
  2. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ready to impeach be and unseat the FCC Commissioner From Verizon, Mr Smugmug himself.
     
    KG7HVR and KC9SIP like this.
  3. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Jessica Rosenworcel is a big proponent of mid-band spectrum. I wouldn't be surprised if the vote for this was 5-0.
     
  4. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    You need to ask: who gets 'invited for comments'. Entertain that invitation includes (some) Part 97 licensees...those without an AGENDA against the CARRIERS, for example.
     
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Your statement here is just plain wrong.

    '5G' stands for '5th generation'. It refers to the effort to plan and to implement greater spectral efficiency and speeds for the people of the US, on the 'cell' bands--and that includes NEW ones-- as said use increases in ubiquity for all kinds of purposes, including wireless vehicles, major video streaming, IoT, yadayada yadada .

    Every 8-10 years there is a new generation of cell-based telecom modes, bandwidths, technologies, and so on, to meet the needs of the people of the US--at least in the context you are referring to.

    The reason we hear the statement that the 'US is behind' is because the infrastructure is outpaced, in the US, by the technology now built-in to many smart phones. The phones are capable of 5G (some not all) but the networks are not.

    '6G' is already defined and is expected to be in effect roughly starting in 2027-2029. It is being planned for.

    It is not 'so-called'. It is a defined term. 5G is not 4G. 4G , for example, did not and does not use massive MIMO. That is a purely 5G technology.

    Please be accurate in your presentation. We get your objective: IF we can demonstrate need, then retaining some portion of the 9cm band has merit for Part 97. Other than just telling other hams 'what to do', don't you think you should first help fellow hams understand that there is a need--if it exists?

    If so, what is it?

    Don't pepper the story with 'fake news' type fluff--IMO.

    Your opinion may differ.

    Thanks.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2019
    NL7W, K4RNN, KY5U and 12 others like this.
  6. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    As presently posed, and with an absence of use of the band, save in some minuscule fashion (that can be achieved on other Part 97 allocations), exactly WHY should they object in that vote.

    Give them a compelling reason to retain all or part of the 9cm Part 97 allocation.

    We've been ALERTED TO THIS possible outcome for --15-- FIFTEEN years.... the only outcome from that was to disparage and humilate ME for posing the warning, multiple times, over the 15 years.

    Why object --NOW--?
     
    KY5U, KG7HVR and KR3DX like this.
  7. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There's only a few 5G phones.

    Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G
    Samsung Galaxy S10 5G
    LG V50 ThinQ 5G
    OnePlus 7 Pro 5G
    OnePlus 7T Pro 5G McLaren
    Motorola Moto Z4

    Most notably missing, iPhone.
     
  8. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Not sure of your point.

    What IS your point: that you can't buy a smart phone with 5G?

    Have you been to S. Korea, where the 5G infrastructure is up and running and the Samsung Galaxies (above)are BEST SELLERS?

    Here's a point--if the INFRASTRUCTURE WAS up and working nationally, in the US, then PEOPLE IN THE US would BUY 5G phones.

    Say, isn;t that the point the CARRIERS are making?

    We need bandwidth for 5G in the USA, that's the way you upgrade the infrastructure, to a marked degree.


    And we wouldn't be lagging behind S. Korea, Israel, and many other SMALLER countries.

    We really ARE behind.
     
    KY5U, W4KVW, KR3DX and 1 other person like this.
  9. KM1H

    KM1H Ham Member QRZ Page

    Do we really care about that band Chip? Even during a multi multi mountain top contest RPI super station W2SZ/1 could only come up with 37 Q and 18 mults in the June 2018 contest....and many of those were their own rovers..
    I ignored the band myself.

    Give it up and fight for something better in return.....maybe 4M:D

    Carl
     
    NL7W, AB1ZT, W4KVW and 3 others like this.
  10. KK5JY

    KK5JY Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Yes, I would have to agree with this. 4m would be fine, but something longer would be even better. Or better yet, more space in an existing HF allocation.

    Amateurs aren't going to put together the infrastructure needed to make extensive use of microwave bands. So trading for low VHF or HF space sounds like a reasonable approach.

    It would have been nice if we could preserve a few MHz in the band in question, for one-off projects, but the race to consume microwaves for commercial interests is obviously a heated one.
     
    KF4ZKU, KG7HVR, K9CTB and 2 others like this.

Share This Page