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: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: Subscribe
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
  1. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    ... Because of lack of competition because of FCC sanctioned oligopoly in Telecom and because of FTC and Justice Department failure to prosecute the Sherman Act...

    Finished that for you. Follow the money.
     
  2. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    We need three of the five commissioners to vote against the NPRM as is.

    Which 3 do you think would be most likely to be persuaded to make a few exceptions?
     
  3. WA5VHU

    WA5VHU Ham Member QRZ Page

    And we were about to start linking our network of some 26 repeaters using the ham band-only 3 GHz links instead of trying to keep all the old 420 MHz duplex radios working. If we lose this band we will have to use the bands shared with the public and that's not likely to work. Bummer.
     
    K6CLS likes this.
  4. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Maybe I'm overoptimistic, but point to point narrow beams ought to be able to share with off-beam broadcast... And cellular is 60 90 120 degree pattern. Maybe? Worth asking for an amateur carve out.

    Too bad the NPRM comments are closed and the FCC has declared that they are not obligated to consider comments...
     
  5. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    In the extremely narrow context of spectrum utilization, the T-Mobile/Sprint merger would be a good thing. Sprint sits on a treasure trove of spectrum at 2496 to 2690 MHz, but doesn't have the money to build it out. T-Mobile could take advantage of that band in a big way.
     
  6. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The commissioners usually vote along party lines, 3-2 Republican. But Rosenworcel is a Democrat, so that's why I'm guessing the vote could be 5-0. Here's a couple of her statements on mid-band spectrum.

    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-356984A4.pdf

    https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-91A5.pdf
     
    K6CLS likes this.
  7. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Agreed

    but at the cost of erecting barriers to entry for those frequencies... Isn't that kinda the point of the auctions getting the outrageous final bids...

    Leaving the frequencies underutilized, pros and cons on that...

    Regardless, the merger would consolidate the oligopoly...
     
  8. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    You need to see what was GIVEN UP to create a 4th carrier--DISH.
     
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    None.

    Why?

    Because no one has 'made the case' for the utilization of the 9cm band, and shown that it 'uniquely enables Part 97 's mission, that cannot be done on other bands'.

    I mean, do you NOT want to know the thought process? We can act like a bunch of antiquated hobbyists, or demonstrate enablement of Part 97 mission.

    Notice there is NOTHING about: "hey, what if we can justify 5, or 20 MHz of 9cm, keep that, and not give an indefensible argument on the rest?"
     
    KQ6XA likes this.
  10. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The merger creates economies of scale that give the public choices.
     
    NL7W likes this.

Share This Page