Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by G4TUT, Aug 17, 2019.
Well, Brett is welcome to explain.
IS WISP A THREAT TO THE 9CM HAM BAND?
WISP is a rural based ISP system, leveraging available spectrum to reach small communities in remote and sparsely populated areas. It addresses important issues of internet/broadband access to much of the United States and is an entrepreneurial based 'grassroots' approach to solving that problem. Typically WISP providers service from 1 to 100 customers at far lower rates than carriers, if, in fact, the carriers actually are able to service those customers. Many WISP providers are hams, for the simple reason that the basic knowledge base to provide a WISP system comes from knowing about microwave RF.
No doubt WISP works, in many cases, and has great value to those who use it.
As we discuss, here, threats to ham radio spectrum, and what to do about it, IMO we should be discussing WISP, and its 'next moves' .
See post #58 and others for context. For example:"In short, the problem with CBRS - as with the threat to hams' allocations - is corporate influence. Corporations are greedy for spectrum - both to use for themselves and to hoard so as to lock out competition."
A big problem for WISP is rain and leaves. Both attenuate the signals and thus compromise the reach of WISP. Many WISP operators have sought use of the CBRS band to help solve those problems, and it is clear that there is a great deal of dispute between (at least) some WISP operators and the FCC on the use of that allocation for WISP. See, for example:
If, as it seems, WISP will not gain useful access to the CBRS band, an adjacent ham band--the 9cm band-- lies next door (frequency wise). The 3300-3500 MHz secondary user-to-hams allocation is likely going to be lost because of our lack of use by hams.
Who will make that request for use of our (via secondary use) 9cm ham band?
It may be, partially, the carriers, but it ALSO seems ripe for the picking by WISP operators, who will view it as an alternative to the CBRS band for their extended coverage possibilities.
I know there are many hams who ar WISP providers. IS it true that WISP is considering lobbying for the 9cm ham band? What is the feeling about this amongst WISP operators? If you MAKE such a lobbied request to the FCC, what, exactly do you suggest as a band plan?
Do you expect to leave SOME spectrum of the 9cm band for hams?
The carriers have been very forthcoming in their interest in future allocations. But what about others?
We, as hams, should have a full picture of ALL the players who might go after our allocations, in this case the 9cm band.
What say WISP folks?
When trolls are desperate for attention, they'll post messages full of false assertions not only about another member of the forum but about an entire group or industry of which he or she is a part. They'll lie, engage in fearmongering, cast aspersions, do whatever it takes to attract notice. Their goal, again, is to stir things up - not to engage in productive conversation. QRZ has an "ignore" feature; it's a good idea to use it.
Primary attack on 9cm seems to be from congress.
Good point... the question is how or should we (as hams) stop, and how do we get the likely end-users to help ham radio NOW...such as carriers; WISP; IOT, etc.
Let's make one thing clear from the get-go: WISPs are already strong supporters of amateur radio. Many are hams. I worked on some of the first modern digital radios as a graduate student at Stanford, as part of a project whose work was adapted by Lucent to create WaveLAN, the great granddaddy of Wi-Fi. The professor who advised us was - you guessed it - a ham. I was also the world's first WISP. WISPs have NEVER asked that spectrum be taken away from hams for their benefit, and in fact have partnered with hams on amateur radio networking projects such as AREDN. We also provide bandwidth - often at or below cost or even as a donation - for amateur radio services that require Internet connectivity.
The threat to hams, WISPs, and all other users of spectrum comes from the large mobile carriers. They recognize that the best way to ensure that competition never arises to threaten their comfortable oligarchy is to ensure that no spectrum is available to any startup or innovator which might want to enter the business. They thus constantly claim that they have insufficient spectrum (despite the fact that they barely use a fraction of the huge hoards they have already obtained) and that they can work miracles for mobile users, rural residents, the poor, widows, orphans, etc. if only they can have more. This is why they are falsely claiming that there's a "race to 5G," in which our country will fall hopelessly behind others, economically and otherwise, if they are not given everyone else's spectrum.
IMHO, the best ways to thwart them in this endeavor are:
1. Use our technical expertise to demonstrate that the mobile carriers are engaging in an anticompetitive strategy;
2. Explain, patiently, to non-technical policy makers that most of the wonders that the mobile carriers claim for "5G" are both economically and physically impossible (many violate, among other things, Shannon's Law);
3. Demonstrate the benefits that amateur radio has brought and continues to bring to mankind (many don't realize they have us to thank for their Wi-Fi and cell phones);
4. Keep innovating. Currently, some "old school" hams are discouraging the development of new radio technologies such as weak signal digital modes. They must recognize that if we don't do this we will no longer fulfill our charter (as stated in 47 CFR 97) to advance the state of the radio art; and
5. Better organize the amateur radio community to be heard by policy makers and noticed by the press. The mobile carriers have dozens of lobbying shops working for them; hams in the US really only have the ARRL. A group's influence on policy makers and bureaucrats increases exponentially with the number of voices that speak for it. Therefore, IMHO, there should be multiple amateur radio organizations working in DC and also at the state level. (While the states do not regulate spectrum - that's the exclusive domain of the FCC - they can be strong advocates for us.)
That's a start. Additional ideas welcome!
You have an interesting and valuable perspective on this.
Will be in WY in two weeks...probably not getting over your way unfortunately. Hangin' in Jackson Hole.
This is the inevitable question and I would think most VHF /UHF Hams would be more concerned about retaining 2m / 70 cm ?