Threat to Amateur Radio 23cm band

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by G4TUT, Aug 17, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: abrind-2
ad: L-Geochron
ad: Left-3
ad: HRDLLC-2
  1. W0PV

    W0PV Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, don't take what I say too far. There are hams that would try to capitalize on Amateur Radio, or other hams, unethically. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the term "many", but for me, more than one is too much. Alas, we are just humans.

    OTOH, there are MANY hams who are of the opposite bent. They "get" and adhere to the true collegial spirit of the ham radio adventure and have used that wisdom to advance the art while trying to preserve the source for the future.

    Those are White Knights of Amateur Radio. Some may even try to address the issues you raise. ;)
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2019
    WY7BG likes this.
  2. WY7BG

    WY7BG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Hear, hear. And these are the ones who provide the innovation, mentoring, sharing of knowlege, collaboration, and fellowship that make the hobby worthwhile.

    73 de WY7BG
    W0PV likes this.
  3. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Perhaps you should explore exactly who those people are...or ask W0PV for clarification....
    W0PV likes this.
  4. K8XG

    K8XG XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    What about all these China Devices on Ebay that do FM analog video on the L band. How are the regulators going to stop their interference? In fact being that it is FM video like some Hams use, they may be blaming it on ham radio?

    Channel: 8Ch, AV synchronization (CH4: 1080Hz, CH5: 1120Hz, CH6: 1160Hz, CH7: 1200Hz, CH8: 1240Hz, CH9: 1280Hz, CH(H): 1320Hz, CH(C): 1360Hz)
    0.910G 0.980G 1.010G 1.040G 1.080G 1.120G 1.160G 1.200G 1.240G 1.280G 1.320G 1.360G

    Output Power: 1500mW
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  5. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    There are no trolls here, and people can think for themselves, thank you.

    I don't know anyone who is "exploiting" ham radio. If anyone knows that as a fact, in the context of the threat to loss of Part 97 allocations, please bring it publicly to light here, with fact-based evidence.

    We will lose almost all our allocations at L-band or higher unless we show that we use them. Spectrum is being seen as too valuable to lay idle.

    Now is the time to execute strategies for us to SHOW our use of spectrum, and find new ways to use it.

    Brett, if you have suggestions then now is the time to bring them forward.

    Chip W1YW
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  6. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The objective of PRC manufacturing at RF is to make 'universal' RF exciters and let the country of origin deal with that reality. Essentially PRC is leading the pack to force the world to go from 'SDR' to 'SDWT' (software defined wideband transceiver) with cognitive radio...

    Is that a good thing?

    IMO the answer is absolutely not. It destroys the notion of allocation AND enforcement.
  7. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Several Zedders have asked me offline where the allocation issue is going.

    Here is my perspective (somewhat simplistically stated)--

    In 5 years we will see a drastic paradigm shift--implemented substantially--on frequency allocations. There will be far fewer non-government service 'sole' allocations. Most allocations will be 'multi-use' rather than 'primary'; 'secondary'; 'sole'.

    MOST applications will be forced to deal with waveforms rather than frequencies/bandwidth. For example, low data rate systems will be 'channelized'. High data rate systems will be wideband and leveraged across several (prior)bands, raising the 'interference temperature' (that is, noise floor).

    Many non-government legacy systems/modes will be phased out.

    Cognitive radio--where the system finds an 'open frequency' will be dominant .

    How does ham radio fit into this?

    Well, right now we have allocations. When we use them, and when we execute the PART 97 MISSION (in the US), we become an important backbone and backup.

    We need to show the above, now, in greater numbers and executed plans.

    For example, Field Day shouldn't be a camping trip, contest, or excuse to roast Boston Butt--

    • We need to have many, and wider coverage, simulated emergency networks.

    • We need to essentially also have a voluntary 'mandatory use' where we show evidence of being OTA a minimum number of hours a year (for example).

    • We need more operating events, across all the ham bands. We need to make our numbers clear--we ARE a force.

    So, what are your suggestions, to thwart the threats to allocations?

    There are more hams in the US than ever before...yet the use of spectrum per US ham is at an all-time low...time to change that.

    Chip W1YW
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2019
  8. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    I do agree with the the premise and rationale but I see some practical (and emotional) issues many will have with some of the three bullet points that will make them hard sells.

    OK but there are several ways to adjust that ratio, so watch for unintended consequences.
    W1YW likes this.
  9. W9KEY

    W9KEY XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Hum - Sounds like yet ANOTHER reason not to buy an ICOM IC-9700
  10. W6RZ

    W6RZ Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    A 5 year timeline seems wildly optimistic to me. Just look at 3.5 GHz CBRS. It was established in 2015 and it's still not being used. Or the close to zero penetration of TV white space devices.

    Also, there's plenty of push back to cognitive radio. Cellular carriers paid dearly for their frequencies and expect/demand sole access. Even the DoD seems fed up with being a primary target for reallocation (with the resignation of David Redl).

    Many agree that cognitive radio is the way to go, but actually implementing it will take many moons.

Share This Page