ad: MLSons-1

They are coming for our bands !!

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by K5KTF, Nov 23, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: Left-2
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. K6CLS

    K6CLS Ham Member QRZ Page

    Gee, you folks that say the band is underutilized...

    I don't see any of your call signs on the recent ARRL microwave contest results.

    I don't see any of your call signs involved with AERDN and their backhauls.

    3GHz has other amateur users.
     
  2. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    How many users are there?
     
  3. N1OOQ

    N1OOQ Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hmm... Few hams on the band, requires super narrow beam antennas, generally point-to-point from mountaintops, little activity other than a few contests. Nope, not all that interesting for me.
     
  4. WJ4U

    WJ4U Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hundreds! :)
     
  5. N0TZU

    N0TZU Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I just learned something, the big linked DMR network here (RMHAM) uses a combination of 3 GHz and 5 GHz links to tie together their nearly 30 repeaters in WY, CO, and NM. (The system is independent of the internet).

    I don’t know how many 3GHz vs. 5 GHz or what the impact would be.
     
    N2AMM and AI7PM like this.
  6. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    i think theyre well beyond the “feasibilty study” stage. The document linked by the OP is an NPRM. Meaning that they are actually proposing rules changes.
     
  7. KV6O

    KV6O Ham Member QRZ Page

    Hopefully we can keep 5-20Mhz, having 200Mhz is really not "defensible" if it's sitting unused. IMHO, of course.
     
  8. K1LKP

    K1LKP Ham Member QRZ Page

  9. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    To be clear, the NPRM completely eliminates that entire amateur band. Gone.

    So there is no “hopefully” anything, without a very strong argument in favor of keeping some of it. Impossible battle because the NPRM tells us exactly what conditions needs to be addressed to influence the decision: either show that there is something amateurs are doing with 3.4 GHz that can NOT be done on any other band; or that there are amateur satellites using that band that cannot be moved to other freqs. Neither of which condition is true.
     
  10. KA9JLM

    KA9JLM Ham Member QRZ Page

    So I gather that you home brewed your equipment ? Like we all should.
     
  11. WY7BG

    WY7BG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Congress mandated that the band might be shared, not given away to the mobile carriers for their exclusive use. The ARRL - and hams everywhere - should comment on the FCC's NPRM, noting that selling exclusive licenses would be a direct violation of the law!
     
  12. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    No. That is not what it says.

    The sharing is between commercial and federal (NTIA) users. Amateur radio is "non-federal".
     
  13. WY7BG

    WY7BG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    This is not correct. Read the text:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th...86/text#toc-H05DA00A05816459392C736FEC77F58BD

    It says:
     
  14. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Read the NPRM that the OP posted. That is exactly what (c) requires. The "criteria that may be necessary" that they came up with is to simply eliminate 3.4 GHz as an amateur radio allocation, unless it can be shown that amateur radio is doing something with that band that cannot be done with any other band (I doubt it), or that there are amateur satellites using the band that cannot be moved to different frequencies (there are none).

    The two documents are not inconsistent with each other.

    You seem to be reading it as if you think that bill was a law that protects amateur radio, that the FCC would be violating the law if they eliminate amateur bands? No, of course not. It does not in any way prohibit the FCC from doing what they are always authorized to do. It essentially asks the FCC to make commercial use feasible. Now read the NPRM in that context. You cannot read the NPRM out of context from the bill.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2019
  15. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    So if you want to keep the 3.4 GHz band, and since there apparently are no amateur satellites using it, you need to file comments that make an airtight case that whatever amateur radio is doing with 3.4 GHz is unique and cannot be done on any other band. What do we have that addresses that?

    If all we got is that a handful of hams have money invested in 3.4 GHz equipment, that's not going to be enough. They don't care about that since there's billions of dollars at stake for commercial use.

    One sure thing is that we won't be able to sit on our hands and argue on the internet that somehow they aren't really serious because it'd be "illegal".

    I don't know why anyone is surprised or somehow assumes that amateur radio is more important . This is what we can expect with bands that are underutilized. This is the result of decades of telling Technicians that their liccenses are useless, and nobody is a real ham unless they upgrade to General so that they can say "Yer Five Nine" on 40 meters.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2019
    K8XG, KX4O and K7JEM like this.

Share This Page

ad: ProAudio-1