ad: chuckmartin

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: Radclub22-2
ad: L-MFJ
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
  1. 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.
  2. 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...
     
  3. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

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

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The merger creates economies of scale that give the public choices.
     
    NL7W likes this.
  6. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

  7. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Better idea: follow the usage.

    Or lack of it.
     
  8. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    No it doesn't. It would remove choices and raise prices.

    Price does not depend on cost of goods sold.
     
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    OK, let's go with that premise and explore it.

    If PRICING (the proper term) had no DEPENDENCE on the COGS--ever-- then we should see rampant business failure because people are pricing products BELOW COGS.

    RARELY you see products priced below COGS, as 'loss leaders' for example, or as an 'introduction' on the product as another example...once in a while, a firm will underprice (below COGS) a product to drive a competitor out of the market.

    But "price does not depend on cost of goods sold" indicates absence of knowledge on the business enterprise.

    Perhaps you would care to re-word your ill-conceived statement?
     
  10. G3SEA

    G3SEA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Again ' Change is the only Constant ' whether we like it or not :cool:

    G3SEA/KH6
     
    NL7W likes this.
  11. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hi Carl!

    Nice to hear from you:)

    IMO we do not use the band sufficiently to justify its use. but that's MO. If we can show that portions uniquely meet the needs of Part 97 then we should still be entitled to a piece of that pie.

    Wishing you happy holidays,

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    NL7W likes this.
  12. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I am tired of hearing 'money' tossed around like it is a synonym for a 'dirty diaper'-- something aromatic with the smell of decay and evil.

    *^(^(* that!

    Free markets-- make a better product and people buy it.

    Did you not even PAY ATTENTION to the fact that --DISH-- HAS BEEN 'MADE" a 4th carrier by others GIVING UP SPECTRUM??

    R-E-A-D :
    https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/dish-crafts-its-plans-to-become-4th-us-wireless-carrier

    DISH is going WHOLE HOG on 5G.

    I have choices. And I walk, with my wallet.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
    NL7W likes this.
  13. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    So let's get back to the topic-- the 9cm band.

    Its NOT about the CARRIERS.

    ** Its ABOUT US. **

    • We have made NO CASE for continued allottment of the 3300-3500 MHz band, because its usage is profoundly sparse and not essential to Part 97 mission.
    • We have no hope of retaining full allottment of the 3300-3500 MHz band.
    • We MAY have a shot at a 5-20 MHz section --thus giving up MOST of the 3300-3500 MHz band-- IF we can make the case for 'uniquely enabling' for Part 97 mission.

    That's where we stand.

    I've been warning on this for 15 years. You can find it here on the Zed. I was HUMILIATED publicly for doing that. I will not tolerate any future abuse along those lines. Use your head-- NOT YOUR EMOTIONS. To wit: Don't be a jerk and say that anyone who is realistic about the situation is an 'anti-ham ham', or some manipulated or conflict of interest ham. Or that the carriers are greedy and we have to string them up.

    GET REAL, WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES.

    BTW, I have nothing to gain in the loss of the 9cm band.

    Other than those who want to spew against the carriers, I think some of you will be surprised that the majority of hams in the US just dont care about 9cm.

    Thanks:)

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2019
  14. KR3DX

    KR3DX Ham Member QRZ Page

    Amateurs WILL lose the 9cm band. There are entities that are willing to pay BIG MONEY for this unused spectrum. Hams should focus on retaining the 6M, 2M, 1.25M, 70cm, 33cm, and 23cm bands, and on expanding the HF bands, especially 60M, 40M, 30M, 20M, 17M, and 12M.
     
    NL7W and WD4IGX like this.
  15. NJ1S

    NJ1S Ham Member QRZ Page

    ( & ) its to bad to lose those frequencies however its great to have more 5G servics where there is none!
     

Share This Page

ad: elecraft