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

I thought the Ski Country ARC filing was excellent. They basically have a 9cm repeater system that is (obviously) mountain based. The point they are making is that they have invested time and money in this system and suddenly they are concerned they will be stuck without being able to use it.

Unfortunately their frequency use is hi Q and does not call for a carve out, if I read it correctly.

Call for a CARVE OUT.

 

Thanks for the info. I knew about these. What I mean is walk into HRO Doraville and take one off the shelf.

Ubiquiti isn't actually a ham radio set-up because it's such low power. I'd like at least 60 watts to deal with out of the connector.

Plus, I checked at the truly ubiquitous Wal-Mart and didn't see any, ha.

 

60W for point to point would be ridiculous at 3.5Ghz

 

I'm not really speaking to 5G. It's a commercial thing, and when you throw infinite cash at something, there is usually a solution on the horizon. Such is 5G even though its deployment is ultra-limited and fraught with schedule slips. I'm still waiting for it to be deployed here. They thought it would be 12/2016.

On the other hand, thanks for pointing out one of the massive problems with ham radio these days: nearly everyone has been brainwashed into using and PAYING FOR commercial communication systems or ready-made radios instead of getting the training and doing the designing.

The 2m band and 70cm band, for example, are fraught with 40 year old digital modes and technologies that came from commercial origins. No, I don't have anything that old except SSB transceivers and some nice studio microphones.

In case you're not into reading bio's on here, I worked with the largest cellular company during the transition to digital, and they used digital microwave from site to site. Later, I worked with another company charged with designing, implementing, and maintaining 3, 6, 9, 12, and 24GHz digital, inter-site microwave systems. Both jobs together covered almost a decade.

Rain attenuation above 9GHz is anything but irrelevant, and can be expressed in dB per decade or octave distant. We lose our 3GHz band, we can go up only so far expecting similar performance.

Thinking in terms of Wi-Fi in a business zone is fine, but, AGAIN, I'm not talking about that. That's designed, patented, and produced. Think more toward the non-commercial uses that can be translated into something substantial someday. Not 5G. Not Wi-Fi. Not light carrier. They're done.

Further, if we don't have bands to use freely, we don't have "scratchpad" areas to generate new products, technologies, and devices.

That directly impacts the biggest problem, that most paying users, HAM or not, are romancing the technology (fantasizing, imagining, etc.) instead of advancing the hobby as required in 47 CFR subpart A 97.1 (b). I don't know the syntax of that rule so don't ding me, but (b) deals with the advancement of the radio art.

Seems forgotten.

Don't get me started on how romancing is keeping salaries artificially low....

 

Hey, we're allowed to have 1500 watts there. While I'm leaning more toward dramatic illustration, I was using 30 watt 3 and 6 GHz transmitters in the 1980's. They were connected to 6' dishes for about 30dB of gain. If you don't want children or sight I can give you the addresses. You were driving into one when you hill-topped at one location in Texas. Dunno which was in the most danger: the engineers or the link.

 

The 3.4 GHz version of the Ubiquiti Rocket M isn't supposed to be sold in the US. Some folks have had to sign waivers to purchase them.

 

Okay, that explains a lot. Thanks for the good info (multi-messages).
I've always wanted to get on this band but have not except for the Ramsey automobile speed radar. You have to make the antenna rock solid so it won't modulate the doppler shift or distance is about 15 feet. If you get it dead silent (coffee can antenna) it works maybe 1/2 mile on the interstates.
I gave up and bought the K band Bushnell. It's as good as any police radar, except it works only about 3/4 mile and can't be used in a moving vehicle. It's designed to measure tennis and baseballs so I can't really complain. Works great as a neighborhood vehicle speed checker (instant on).

 

Good points Kris!

Rain attenuation is severe at some frequencies. As a radio astronomer, I know this well, as I did extensive work at 22 GHz and 43 GHz.

You obviously know (of) N9NB. Ted is one of the founders of 5G. He, as a ham (active!) and professional has advanced the radio art. Ted showed that the attenuation can be pretty much countermanded in mm links (dominanted by water vapor/water attenuation)by using sufficient gain in the antenna arrays. I had the same concerns you just mentioned--and the numbers are quite convincing.The point is that there is nothing stopping hams from doing the same thing above 9 GHz.

Yep. We all know the Friis equation; we all know the water (vapor) attenuation. Ted showed there was a path to work through it.

I do not share your rational about needing, say, 200 MHz of 3300-3500 MHz in order to 'advance the radio art'. Others are far more cynical than I am on this. They claim we need none of it. Certainly the rarity of use is a killer here.

I am 'for advancement of the radio art' via Part 97 more than you know. And when I discuss it here personally I get dissed, so I don't. You can track me down easily if you want to...start with the hamvention awards list if you want.

Do I believe a carve out at 9cm helps us on our Part 97 mission? You bet!

73
Chip W1YW

 

Welcome to the "Brave New World"...

Concerted attacks on the amateur spectrum privileges is most likely something that we have to live in an increasing rate with in the future.

The 9 cm band is not regularily allocated in Europe, only on footnote and temporary permit basis, so the problem has not surfaced in the same manner here.

However, the 2300-2400 MHz band is already lost, or will be lost in many (most) ITU Region 1 countries. This is due to the a harmonised allocation of this spectrum for "4.5 G" services in the whole EU. In the first draft of the Swedish regulatory proposal some years ago, the whole band 2300 to 2450 MHz would be deleted from amateur use.

There were quite a lot of activities a few years ago which tried to "save" at least some part, either at the old activity centre at 2304 MHz or the new at 2320 MHz, and a few filings to the regulator were made to this effect. I co-authored two of them, one from the ESR ("Experimenting Swedish Radio-amateurs) and another from the National Committee for Radio Science.

The arguments were that a small "carve-out" would not harm mobile broadband services, especially if it was placed at some guard-band position within the channelling plan.
Some precedents about successful spectrum sharing were also cited.

All objections were summarily dismissed. The regulator simply stated that amateur radio was completely irrelevant, and that there was a lot of otherwise unused UHF spectrum available for amateur radio. The analysis for co-existence or sharing coming from the National Committe was also dismissed, but the only light in the darkness was that the proposal to eliminate 2400-2450 MHz completely was withdrawn.

But with the side-effect that 2400-2450 MHz operations in the future were limited to 100 mW transmitter power, in order to protect (!) other ISM users in this band.

An attempt by the national society to inflate the numbers of potential users of the band back-fired, as the regulator made their own analysis of the actual use, and found that only a handful did regular operating.

Some other 2300 MHz users, such as semi-fixed video link users and military radio relay systems also filed, but to no avail.

It appears that current regulators only listen to well-heeled interests today, and that "thin-route users" are at a definite disadvantage.

What the future will bring is somewhat diffuse today, the pace of 4.5/5 G roll-out has not been so rapid as expected, and some of the spectrum auction preparations will have to be redone due the recent passing of a law in Parliament which is aimed to prevent Huawei from selling 5G infrastructure to the network operators.

This is expected to start a flurry of law-suits whose outcomes will govern the future selling and allocation of spectrum.

It is somewhat difficult to see at which band the next attack will be, my own prediction is 23 cm first, and 3 cm later. Radionavigation wants protection from amateurs in the 23 cm
band, and this is coming to the agenda at the next WRC. 3 cm is very attractive from a price/performance perspective for local area coverage. Already have parts of 3 cm been auctioned off, but amateur use is not yet phased out.

If the FCC spectrum bureaucrats are even remotely similar to those in Europe, this mindset is likely to take over also in the US.

The days of having spectrum allocations just for "good looks" are gone for ever.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

That's great perspective. Thanks.

 

...so we can cook dinner while providing backbone for an amateur IP network.

 

The FCC meeting is about to start, everyone. http://www.fcc.gov/live - it's the third item this morning. The second item is also of interest to hams because it involves the 5 GHz band. (The FCC is not proposing in the NPRM to take that band from us, but the mobile carriers - greedy for spectrum - surely will propose it in their comments on the NPRM.)

 

We don't need to "live with" them; we must defend against them. All other spectrum users must unite against the political and monetary clout of the mobile carriers, whose greed simply knows no bounds.

 

THANKS! I wasn't aware that the FCC meetings were available live, I appreciate you posting the link.

 

Well, the FCC just approved the item. With virtually ZERO discussion or comment. This shows how little regard the current Commission has for the contributions of amateur radio - and how much regard it has for the corporations that will employ the Commissioners once they exit through DC's revolving door. Time to comment!