FCC Orders Amateur Access to 3.5 GHz Band to “Sunset”

The sun never sets.

And the sun never rises.

We can be euphemistic all we want, but let's get factual.

Thanks.

 

This is incorrect. The 'order to sunset' Part 97 secondary allocation on (the full) 3.3-3.5 GHZ is neither described nor even hinted at by the Whitehouse reference shown. There is no evidence that the Whitehouse requested this in any way from the reference shown. If there is evidence for that, it has yet to be presented here.

The decision to 'sunset' according to the FCC, is based on the failure to uniquely use the 9cm band by other than a small number of the overall Part 97 licencees, given the availability of like bands for the modest demand.

If the ARRL is acting based on this piece of information--as this ARRL Director post presents-- then it acts on incorrect facts.

 

You are not correct.

The 100 MHz of 3.45-3.55 GHZ is to be re-assigned for commercial 5G deployment. That loss of 50 MHz from use of Part 97 has been known for many months. But the 9cm Part 97 allocation of 3.3-3.45 GHZ was NOT slated for re-assignment. It will be NOW, because of the failure of Part 97 users, and the ARRL, to convince the FCC of the need for at least part of the remaining 3.3-3.45 GHz to remain as secondary Part 97 use.

The Whitehouse 'pushed' and achieved, 3.45-3.55 GHz. Congress , under the Mobile Now mandate had no such specifics on the Part 97 9cm band in toto, only guidelines for 'freeing up spectrum' for the public's 5G needs. And this happen(ed) with the 3.45-3.55GHZ re-allocation.

There are no plans for either the government, nor carriers, nor manufacturers, to be expecting any allocation of commercial '5G' spectrum within the 3.3-3.45 GHz window. That may be discussed at a later date--who knows?-- but right now 3.3-3.45 GHz is not up for that. THAT is the fact, Ria.

Part 97 COULD have had a piece of that . That failure, IMO, lies heavily on the ARRL.

 

Please cite the ARRL statement in the response to the NPRM, where the ARRL took the position of requesting, suggesting, or alternatively presenting as an option, a 'carve out' for the 3.3-3.5 GHz (9cm) Part 97 secondary allocation for Part 97 licencees.

Thank you.

 

If this is true, then a two phase sunset would allow hams on 9cm for many years. Here's the relevant part of the Further Notice about a two phase sunset.

"68. We note, however, that certain commenters caution against clearing spectrum of amateur operations earlier than necessary to accommodate new wireless broadband operations. When considering the timeline for relocation of non-federal radiolocation operations, the Commission considered that there are a small number of these licensees operating in the band, no commenters objected to the relocation, and that commenters agreed that existing equipment can be upgraded to support relocated operations, leading to reduced expense and complexity. Many amateur licensees, by contrast, argue that requiring them to cease operations earlier than necessary would be “a waste of valuable spectrum resources,” and other commenters echo this concern. Many also argue that, since the focus of future flexible use licensing is above 3.45 GHz, the Commission at a minimum should allow amateur operators to continue below 3.45 GHz for the foreseeable future. In light of these concerns, and of the large number of amateur licensees currently operating in the band, we seek comment on sunsetting amateur use in the band in two separate phases.

69. We propose to sunset amateur operations in the 3.4-3.5 GHz band, pursuant to the accompanying Report and Order, but to allow amateur operations in the remainder of the band (i.e., 3.3-3.4 GHz) to continue pending further decisions about the future of this portion of the spectrum. Specifically, we propose that amateur use in the upper portion of the 3.3-3.55 GHz band would sunset according to the procedures set out in the accompanying Report and Order (on a date consistent with the first possible grant of flexible use authorizations to new users in that portion of the band), while amateur use of the lower portion of the band would continue until a future date to be set later in this proceeding. If we adopt this approach, we stress that amateur operations in that lower portion of the band would remain on a secondary basis, and the allocation would continue to be subject to sunset at any time.

70. Would this approach of bifurcating the amateur allocation and sunsetting the two portions on different dates allow amateur operations to continue during the pendency of decisions about use of the band below 3.4 GHz, while still providing future flexible use licensees sufficient protection from harmful interference? What are the costs and benefits of this approach and of any alternatives? If we were to adopt this approach, at what frequency should we split the band? Given the possibility that cross-service adjacent channel interference could result if we allow amateur operations to continue immediately adjacent to 3.45 GHz, we propose to set the upper boundary of this lower portion of the allocation at 3.4 GHz in order to create a 50 megahertz guard band, and seek comment on that proposal. Are there alternatives to this approach that would allow increased amateur use while also providing full protection to flexible use licensees?"

I think it would be in the best interest of the ARRL to provide comments to the Further Notice supporting the two phase sunset.

 

Chip, learn to read, before going full postal. It's right there. Full band, from the top.

Separate;y, I think the executive overstepped his job here, should not even be involved in minutia like this.

 

On the contrary, you just proved my point: there are NO PLANS on the use and ALLOCATION of 3.3-3.45 GHz.

'Guard bands' are nothing new: they are QUIET REGIONS intended to prevent DIRECT INTERFERENCE from spurious emissions AND/OR PIM. They are dead zones. But dead zones..for WHAT???

Again--NO PLANS on the ALLOCATION AND USE of 3.3-3.45 GHZ.

 

The facts are key here, and I have read and understood with accuracy. Please do not make an ad hominem attack in the face of that fact. I read just fine, and I am not placing you, or anyone else, in the direction of an irrational and violent display intended to induce harm. Never ever.

Here is what it says:

• At the President’s direction, the Administration announced that 100 megahertz of contiguous, coast-to-coast mid-band spectrum will be made available for commercial 5G deployment.
  • This spectrum will give Americans access to the greatest 5G networks in the world, leading to cutting-edge innovation, economic prosperity, and strong national security.
• The American wireless industry will be able to build and operate 5G networks nationwide using the 3.45-3.55 GHz band.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE 3.3-3.45 GHZ remaining allocation for Part 97 SECONDARY USE.

The Whitehouse HAS NOT directed the FCC to "sunset" the 9cm band from 3.3-.3.45 GHZ.

For an ARRL DIrector to publicly state this, and cite that reference as EVIDENCE
indicates real problems with the ARRL at the BOARD level on spectral defense of Part 97.

The ARRL needs to NOT BLAME OTHERS for their inability to successfully defend Part 97 allocations, with this latest outcome.

Furthermore, ARRL Director(s) should not be making publicly false statements about *individuals* with intent to tarnish reputation --so as to, IMO, divert the reality of fact.

As a LIFE MEMBER who very much supports the League in many of its actions, I am appalled by this. I remind others that I have been a public supporter--one of many examples-- of the League's newest magazine ,tailored to new hams. If the facts are needed to demonstrate that support, I am able and willing to cite those posts. It is defamatory for an ARRL Director to state that the " ARRL is always wrong in your eyes" in order to destroy my credibility on a topic for which I do not support the ARRL, and, indeed, one in which said Director makes a comment not supported by a cited fact.

73
Chip W1YW

 

won't be long now. All the ham bands will be code free,fcc will turn all ham bands over to the free banders and it will be a free for all ham nation. It will be just like the cb radio License...no test,no code,no rules. from 10 micro watts to 100 kw. free for all! make your own call signs,play music,etc.

 

Here's commissioner O'Rielly's statement on the NPRM.

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-138A3.pdf

"For these reasons, we need to seriously consider the remainder of this band, starting with the next 100 megahertz, or 3.35 to 3.45 GHz."

 

O'Reilly talking about the rest of the band in the open meeting. Skip to 13:45.

 

Commissioner O'Reilly's opinion is an opinion. It is not a plan. It has no basis for enabling nor requiring others to adhere to said opinion, let alone adopt it. The Commissioner's opinion has not been translated into a draft plan. There is no NPRM circulating for allocation of 3.35 to 3.45 GHZ for 5G use, nor one scheduled.

There will be no allocation of 3.35 to 3.45 GHz for 5G in the near or mid future, or perhaps at all.

Midband 5G spectrum is likely to be adequately met by the soon-to-be auctioned 3.45-3.55 GHz band.

Any assertion of need for ADDITIONAL midband spectrum requires the balance of need versus cost of infrastructure. Both have been markedly compromised by the COVID epidemic, thereby producing profound demographic shifts, declined carrier revenues, and most importantly, a profound pullback of updating carrier midband 5G technology..

Simply put, the exponent of 'densification' has reversed in key cities where the (opinioned) possible 'new' 5G band would be needed. Carriers will NOT be willing to 'buy' additional midband (3.35-3.45 GHz) spectrum until there is a demonstrable need. That could be as little as 7-10 years or NEVER.

IMO the Commissioner's opinion indicates an absence of the realities of the re-distribution of population in the United States, and the 'entry barrier ' costs to carriers in additional implementation.

Certainly there is no 'action item' resulting from the Commissioner's opinion, that manifests as a re-assignment of 3.35-3.45 GHz (which includes 100 MHz of Part 97 secondary spectrum)at ANY DEFINED TIME, now or in the future.

So the FCC has opted to do a timed revocation of secondary use(by Part 97) for 3.3-3.45 GHz without an extant (or realistic future) demonstrable need by other parties. Furthermore, hinting at an additional --possible--new band will seriously be deleterious to the revenue to the USG auction for 3.45-3.55 GHz. It was a profound mistake, IMO, to suggest any future band from the remaining 150 MHz of the Part 97 sec9ndary allocation, for commercial 5G use, someday...

There is no reassigment of the above band, nor plan to reassign it.

As such, the failure of the ARRL to drive that point home, and not asking for a carve out in its NPRM response, has set a powerful and deleterious precedent for future 'defense' of Part 97 spectrum, IMO.

The FCC may feel free to 'sunset' any (presumably microwave) ham band it wishes, without a plan for its use beyond the amateur radio service.

 

The numbers would seem to make the decision pretty simple. Number of hams actually using the 3.5Ghz band vs the anticipated number of 5G users.

 

That is a lot of spectrum!!! But to be honest, do hams really need that much BW? The days of running pulse transmitters, etc. are long gone. Ten MHz of spectrum for hams would be enough given the current state of the art and GPS locked frequency standards for CW and SSB operation.

 

I suggested a carve out of 5 to up to 20 MHz.... the ARRL did not support, in its NPRM response, any carve out like that at all.