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

Hi Chip,

sounds like you agree with me, but I can't tell for sure.

You're missing something, price is whatever the market will support. And that goes higher in a monopoly / oligopoly situation, where the conversation started. The higher price has very little to do with COGS.

You are missing something else: There is no "free market". there is always hidden information. Didn't you read Von Neumann and Morganstern, Game Theory? We're all playing poker, not chess.

Case in point, do you divulge to your customers and clients COGS of your product? No you don't. You are causing friction in the real "free market"!!

that's enough for now, I'm entirely correct, and you missed the point. Your other posts seem like a tantrum, so I won't dive in tit for tat. Thanks for playing.

 

Check mate.

 

If you never used them you have no complaint.

 

No kidding this time.

While I agree with you concerning contesting here, the real use(s) for this band involve inter-city relay (Atlanta <--> Birmingham or Charlotte <--> Raleigh). One day we'll have off the shelf digital radios for this band, and man what a band it is!

Without going into details, there's enough bandwidth to relay A N Y T H I N G.

The biggest thing we'll miss is this band is below the 9 GHz rain wall, i.e. the iron curtain that blocks signals in moderate rain above 9 GHz.

If you need a quick demo, check the signal strength of a 12GHz DBS TV satellite signal in a moderate rainstorm. Kiss it goodbye until the rain stops, or call it intermittent if you have a 100/100 S-meter reading when dry. Certain combinations (cloud thickness, rain, lightning ionization) would take out my 94 S meter reading.

New tech could pop up at any time. Two years ago, few were using FT-8, and now I can seldom find room in that narrow band.

I'll betcha we'll be saying: "WOW that woulda worked great on 3GHz."
K

 

Probably both the hams who have ever used are bothered by this.

Yawn.

 

There already are off the shelf digital radios for the band.

https://www.ui.com/airmax/rocketm/

The M3 covers 3370 to 3730 MHz.

 

Uhhh...

If there is a radio ALREADY AVAILABLE for the 9cm band--then where are all the Part 97 users???

You can't make a FUTURE case when the present indicates ABSENCE OF USE, and availabity of EXTANT HARDWARE.

Show a 9 cm CARVE OUT would be used by Part 97 licensees.

 

The whole point of 5G at millimeter is that you can counterbalance the rain attenuation with directional antenna gain. That is, millimeter 5G has the same problem with rain attenuation. So if you make the argument that we need the bandwidth AND the 'sweet spot' of 9GHz--we need 9cm because of rain attenuation at higher frequencies-- it will be shown as irrelevant based on the 5G millimeter solutions, by analogy.

 

JMHO of course, but KM1H and KK5JY - Carl and Matthew ... beat me to it - and they nailed it better than I can!! The US hunger for cell phone speed and cheap availability will continue to drive the auctioning of UHF and low microwave spectrum anyway. Amateur allocations here are gonna be the obvious casualties since we're not really developing them at anything that could be considered a competitive pace. Something like 4 meters would be awesome! Something like, say, a stretched allocation on 40 meters wouldn't hurt too many feelings either, I'm betting - especially as fixed services in other countries are moving from there these next few years, maybe the next WARC meeting would be productive? Now, take amateur development of the so-called "sound card modes" these last 10 years or so as the opposite example -- and hams are "killing it" on development of efficient use of HF and VHF bands. I would think a rational FCC (and a motivated amateur advocate like, say, ARRL) would use the "development argument" to make these kinds of changes. So IMHO, it's a "glass half full" kind of thing. Guess we'll haveta see.

 

Sounds like a good idea to me! I have been a ham almost 50 years and have been amazed we have hung on to as much spectrum as we have. It would be great to have more HF space for sure which would be used. The VHF/UHF space has become a valuable asset and if it is not being used we will for sure be under attack by those wishing to profit from it.

 

Where is the big rush of 'let's tell the FCC what to do' posts??

 

Some seem to be suggesting that HF expansion can be traded off against loss of 3.4 GHz? That is nowhere close to being realistic. "We'll give up 3.4 GHz if you'll expand 40m HF band" is utter nonsense.

Hams have no leverage in what happens to 3.4 GHz. There is nothing to bargain with and it is not "ours" anyway (secondary). We only have it because we haven't peeved off the primary users (government/military) yet.

Vacating 3.4 GHz or not is not a "choice" we get to make!

The only option left open is to somehow convince the FCC that something essential to the Part 97 mission that amateur radio is using 3.4 GHz for can not be done on any other band. As Chip has suggested, maybe AR can hang onto a tiny slice of it on a secondary or even tertiary basis, possibly not even in the same frequency range, given a credible enough argument. But can AR justify keeping 200 MHz worth of that spectrum, to link a few repeaters, and maybe someday in the future do something else with it? Don't think so.

 

Why give this up? First it was an effort to lose the 2 meter band and now this. We lost part of the 200 band to U.P.S. , which ended in Them not really use. The point being over all is why lose this?? No one knows that it would not be used by Hams who will be interested in proper use by Hams.

 

It's not ours to "give up".

I assume you mean the 220 MHz band. That has nothing to do with the this present NPRM on the 3.4 GHz band reallocation.

Because there are other concerns that want it, and the Congress told the FCC to figure out how to make that happen. Part of the FCC's solution is to get hams out of the way, unless there's some good reason not to.

On the other hand, nobody knows that it would be used by hams any more than it is. We've had it since after WWII I believe. How much longer should the FCC wait for hams to make better use of it, before reallocating it to users who surely will use it?

 

Didn't the arrl already "tell the FCC what to do" with their comments?