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

...and is WY7BG a --user-- of that 9cm band?

Brett STILL has not ANSWERED that question.

Brett--

ARE YOU A USER Of 9cm ??????????

(BTW, I AM a user of 9cm...I use it to skylark antenna ideas that don't belong in the lab yet. Yep. Part 97 in action.)

Why would anyone assert leadership of an alleged coalition without being experienced in the heart of the issue?

 

He wants to FIGHT ...

For his RIGHT ....

To EX PARTE !

 

Hey, Chip, can you point me to a source that has studied the long term biological effects of these technologies at the power and proximity to be used and permitted? I can't find such studies can you? So why should FCC be even entertaining such a proposal? Remember, most hams don't spend four or more hours a day with a GHz xmtr pressed to their heads.

 

I think your point is well taken--we have NO IDEA what hams running 1500 watts at 3300-3500 MHz does in long term biological effects.

Scary!

Fortunately 5G midband powers are typically 20 watts for the base stations,and usually much less. Make that more than 20 dB better/ less potentially dangerous than Part 97 users with 1500 watts.

5G phones have the mm antenna array at the bottom of the phone, where it is not deeply in the near field . So RF current on the head/ body are much less than at low band, for example. Students exercise to look that up.

5G phones only use 5G for things like streaming. Kinda hard to see the screen in 5G streaming when the phone is up against your ear!! IOW the modes that people use that need 5G are usually the very ones that remove the phone from the contact of the head.

Add the antenna gain for ham transmissions to get ERP BTW. YoW!!

Maybe we NEED a long term study of the biological effects of ham radio high power transmissions at GHz ranges. Good suggestion!

 

They won't get it...but I think that's hiLARIOUS!

 

An FYI for anyone who cares, the "official" written statements of the Commissioners have been posted to the ECFS.

The NPRM isn't up yet but probably will be soon. Assuming that since there was no dissention between the commissioners over it, that it will be identical to the "Fact Sheet" version of Nov 21.

 

Oh, and full disclosure:

* I do not use the 9 cm band (although I do use 5 cm for a telemetry experiment, and am concerned about "dominoe effect" loss of that depending on how things go on 9cm).

* I have no stock or other investments in Evil Greedy Carriers.

* I do pay my mobile phone bill every month, so I am probably encouraging at least one Evil Greedy Carrier to be Evil and Greedy by being a customer.

* I still only own an Iphone 6. I am not sure if my three-year-old phone would know what to do with a 3.x GHz signal even if it could pick up one. Living out here in the sticks and down hill from everything else around me, I am lucky if I see 2 bars of LTE signal, and happy to get it even if the carrier is Evil and Greedy. .

* I once saw a fractal antenna. I was not frightened. It was kind of cool.

 

Does anyone know how 9cm fares in rain, snow and vegetation?

 

COOK DINNER, HELL! Cook ourselves!

 

Well, I dunno about you, but now that I'm over sixty, I like less complexities.

Yah, if I shove 300,000 MW ERP across some rainfall, maybe the drops will migrate out of the way. I dunno. But, the math is still there to haunt us.

No matter the gain of the antenna, the Fresnel zone clearances remain tied permanently to the frequency of interest, and, therefore, the distances thereof.

I have not done the math on anything, but the little voice in the back of my head like Tom Selleck's Magnum P.I. had keeps screaming at me. Two things:
1) Likely to get the desired ERP, you'll need multiple antenna arrays. Through massive trial and error sessions, you may hit the target on maximum gain without attenuating reflection from the Fresnel zones, et. al., but it's sometime a tough row to hoe. Go over sea water or a busy metro street and things get spicey-dicey without trying to get past a given antenna design that has phase flaws.
2) I forget where it was. It may have been Davenport, IA. Don't quote me on that. When I worked for NorTel customer service, they called us to solve some other microwave problem, (probably an oven) but while I was there I noticed an alarm going off almost continuously on the 10GHz link that crossed a 4-lane street into another networking building. It had 4 dishes aimed at 4 more dishes, perhaps 29dB each. The pouring down rain kept the 10GHz from crossing the street, essentially, according to the lead tech.
Sure, there could have been water in the antenna system, or the transmitter was doing 3% output, or the aim could have been at the side of the building instead of the dishes, or, or, or, or.
It nevertheless made a permanent impression on me, especially because I never knew if the issue(s) was (were) resolved.

I'll have to put it in your hands to solve issues like these, because I have enough worries trying to fix my 20 year old Kenwood TS-870s. I'm sure y'all can do it, but the issues still worry me.

So do the focuses on commercial comm instead of free comm, especially on the inevitable yanking of our best frequencies by ZenoTel or CostlyComm.

As for using 300 MHz bandwidth -- I vividly remember the obsolete Nyquist theories. Therein lies the key to "maximum bandwidth utilization (MBU)" (ha). I see it as a challenge more than a legal (FCC) issue.

Thanks for your input. If nothing else, your interest has piqued my interest in playing on 3GHz prior to its loss. My test gear covers that band, so what am I waiting on?

73

 

Thanks fer comments

I think we should all use it, but realistically its too late to hope keeping the 200 Meg allocation. But hey--20 MHz of it would allow sats and meshes, and so on

73
Chip W1YW

 

Roger that. It's fun to dream anyway.

Maybe we can whine enough to keep half or one-third of the allocation as a compromise, and some assurances that in the future it isn't separated into a buncha tiny chunks.

We never got the equivalent replacement law passed did we? I dunno. It said that whatever we lose we recover in equivalent bandwidth. It was too optimistic, I guess.

I dunno if it were you or not who talked about something in the mostly EU one meter band, but that could be lots of fun.

 

The 'equivalence' bill was ill fated and never passed.

Good memory!

73
Chip W1YW

 

Sounds like 5G phones will be strictly city phones, of no use in rural areas. I missed the prior post about rain attenuation. I was thinking of the S-Band radars the Weather Service uses because precipitation reflects them. I'll bet trees will block the signal as well, the same way 70cm degrades in the spring in my neck of the woods. If the telcos change their infrastructure as they did for LTE, it means cell-phone coverage for rural areas maybe a thing of the past, like CDMA is now.

 

Long pig -- the other, other white meat.