Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands  (Read 397 times)

KB5UGF

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« on: December 29, 2019, 11:47:04 AM »

You may already be aware of the two current FCC proposals to reallocate part 97 use of the 3.4 and 5.8 GHz spectrum. If not, the first proposal would eliminate part 97 use of 3.3-3.5 GHz with no clear remedy for reassignment, although one suggestion would be to move part 97 to 3.1-3.3 GHz. Many users around the country are using modified WISP equipment that has hardware limitations preventing it from tuning lower than 3.37 GHz, eliminating the possibility of using this spectrum. The other FCC proposal involves opening up 5.850-5.925 GHz to shared part 97 use with unlicensed users. Just look at 2.4-2.45 GHz to see how well that works! Many groups around the country like ours have wide-area mesh network systems that use these two bands to provide emergency communication services to area EOCs and other government and non-government entities. Eliminating these bands would curtail or even eliminate our ability to provide these services. Of course, many other hams also use these frequencies with other modes of communication.

What is needed is for every ham to take a minute and file a comment to the FCC in opposition to these two proposals. In your comment, state specifically how you and/or your group or agency would be negatively impacted by the reallocation of these two bands. There is an “express” filing option for shorter comments and an “ordinary” option that allows up to five attached documents. We don't have much time, probably some time in mid-January, before the window of opportunity for filing comments closes. PLEASE forward this email to anyone and everyone you know who uses these frequencies, or anyone who would be affected by the reallocation of them.

Here's some associated links:
•Filing comments to the FCC (Only the required fields need to be filled in): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings
•FCC proposal to reallocate 3.4 GHz (Docket 19-348): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360941A1.pdf
•FCC proposal to reallocate 5.8 GHz (Docket 19-138): https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360940A1.pdf
•[ARRL] FCC Formally Adopts Proposals to Remove Amateur 3-GHz Band, Invites Comments: http://www.arrl.org/news/fcc-formally-adopts-proposals-to-remove-amateur-3-ghz-band-invites-comments

From the FCC page you file your comments on, you can also do a “Filings and Proceedings” search to see what other comments have been filed by searching the proceeding number – 19-348 for the 3.4 GHz proposal, 19-138 for the 5.8 GHz proposal.

Your involvement in helping preserve ham radio spectrum is needed and appreciated!

David, KB5UGF
on behalf of the Mansfield-Johnson Amateur Radio Service
Logged

WA6III

  • Posts: 50
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2020, 10:10:21 PM »

What is needed is for every ham to take a minute and file a comment to the FCC in opposition to these two proposals.
I would disagree.    It's not "needed" by the majority of hams since they do not use those bands (at all)

I would argue that since I don't know anyone using those bands and I have never met anyone using them.

Why would we argue to "keep" band segments that are generally not in use?

The Jan and June VHF contest each year should be an indication of use.

Quote
5. Scoring:

     5.1. QSO points:

          5.1.1. Count one point for each complete 50- or 144-MHz QSO.

          5.1.2. Count two points for each 222- or 432-MHz QSO. 

          5.1.3. Count three points for each 902- or 1296-MHz QSO.

          5.1.4. Count four points for each 2.3 GHz (or higher) QSO.

In many cases looking back through contest results indicate maybe 1 or 2 contacts during these contests.

Which might mean that the activity during non-contest times is less.....(or non-existent)

My feeling is that if the FCC wants to reallocate those bands,  have at it!

I would suggest putting the effort on keeping the bands that ARE in use.


Logged

KB8VUL

  • Member
  • Posts: 654
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2020, 06:48:09 PM »

Just because YOU are not using these bands doesn't mean that they are not used.
As the OP put in , there are major mesh network systems that are in place for use by hams.
The ARDEN network is one that comes to mind.  As it is what we are building in our area.
Currently we have 5 counties in central Ohio linked and are continuing to assemble the network as vertical real estate becomes available.
Logged

W7XTV

  • Member
  • Posts: 1269
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2020, 08:38:02 PM »

Just because YOU are not using these bands doesn't mean that they are not used.
As the OP put in , there are major mesh network systems that are in place for use by hams.
The ARDEN network is one that comes to mind.  As it is what we are building in our area.
Currently we have 5 counties in central Ohio linked and are continuing to assemble the network as vertical real estate becomes available.

But are they used enough?  Numbers are what matters to the government.  If the FCC can order a couple thousand TV stations out of UHF Channels 38-51 (actually, Channels 38-83 since 1980) in order to turn that spectrum over to Big Cellular and Public Safety services, they can evict a few hundred hams.  The 3.3-3.5 GHz band will potentially be used by millions of subscribers.
Logged
He speaks fluent PSK31, in FT8...  One QSO with him earns you 5BDXCC...  His Wouff Hong has two Wouffs... Hiram Percy Maxim called HIM "The Old Man..."  He is... The Most Interesting Ham In The World!

WA6III

  • Posts: 50
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2020, 01:50:51 AM »

Quote
But are they used enough?  Numbers are what matters to the government.  If the FCC can order a couple thousand TV stations out of UHF Channels 38-51 (actually, Channels 38-83 since 1980) in order to turn that spectrum over to Big Cellular and Public Safety services, they can evict a few hundred hams. 
It's actually more than a few hundred https://www.arednmesh.org/content/aredn-map-0 and the concept of a ham radio inter/intranet is appealing.  Just not really sure it's necessary.

It would appear that the AREDN system is a great idea.  We just might not have much control over which bands we're allowed to implement it on. And "losing" 3 and 5ghz doesn't shut it down,  the RF equipment is just migrated to a different band.
Logged

NC5P

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2020, 08:06:06 PM »

This is just part of a massive spectrum grab by investors/wireless industry.  The "5G" revolution is aimed not really at phones (who needs gigabit data rates on a phone handset?) but they fully intend to replace TV broadcasting, cable TV, satellite TV, and wifi/DSL/cable internet with it.  Soon all big screen TVs (4k and 8K) will come with 5G radios built in.  They want everything to have LTE radios in it, your garage door opener, the thermostat, music system, pacemakers, etc.  Kaching, kaching, every device is charged a monthly fee plus data used.  The whole thing is an Orwellian nightmare to me.   

I'm not sure we can do anything to stop this.  The safest bands we have are probably the bands shared with noisy part 15 devices since they can't shut down all those devices in any reasonable (to investors that is) time.  They would have to wait for all that junk to wear out and that could take years.  One thing more predictable than the sun rising is that investors have NO patience.  It's get rich quick to all of them and that's what they do while the middle class disintegrates.  They go after licensed services since the FCC just orders them to shut down.     
Logged

WA6III

  • Posts: 50
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2020, 10:08:38 PM »

Quote
This is just part of a massive spectrum grab by investors/wireless industry.  The "5G" revolution is aimed not really at phones (who needs gigabit data rates on a phone handset?) but they fully intend to replace TV broadcasting, cable TV, satellite TV, and wifi/DSL/cable internet with it. 

All quite true.  Although it's hard to say that "we" don't need gigabit on a phone handset. 

The 5G (5th GEN) system will revolutionize broadband internet  and perform with or out perform (or likely replace)  cable, DSL and especially satellite...... and then put it in places places where cable/DSL can't or won't go. 

The investors/wireless industry are the ones with the money and literally everybody will benefit.  It WILL happen.
Why on earth would the FCC and telecommunications regulators want to stop it in favor of a small number of hobbyists?

Remember what happened to the 11m band when they decided it would better serve the public to create a Citizens Radio Service at 26.9-27.2 Mhz.
Logged

N9AOP

  • Member
  • Posts: 1280
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2020, 10:27:50 AM »

And yet, with all this next gen electronic gee-wizardry, they still will not let ATT get rid of the copper.
Art
Logged

KC5CSG

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2020, 05:49:39 AM »

Two bands that no one hardly uses. Whenever someone does use either of those bands it usually merits a news article in QST magazine. Why are we crying over the reallocation of two bands that MOST amateurs have no interest in, and still refusing to get the point and put the bands we all do use to more use.

2 meters is a wasteland. It has become a band for emcomm whack jobs/survival types who think the only time you should key there is when there is a disaster. We've been told, for years now, USE IT OR LOSE IT. Got the point? Something tells me........NO!

KC5CSG
Logged

KB8VUL

  • Member
  • Posts: 654
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2020, 07:24:25 AM »

While I think it sucks.  Ultimately it's going to happen.
FCC is repacking television over money, and the government is spending MILLIONS to make it happen.
The continued growth of data and path requirements push the FCC to further change the RF landscape to provide more space for more data, we are stuck with whatever is left over. 

So what to do.
We need to start looking hard at 11Ghz equipment and see what of it will move down to 10.3 Ghz.
There has been microwave gear on these frequencies since the 50's, via AT&T and the long distance microwave network.
Harris Constellation comes to mind, and there are others.  And up there, my guess is we will be left alone for some time.
It sucks needing to vacate our bandwidth.  And unfortunately the FCC / government pocketbook is most likely NOT going to pay for the move, although it would be worth petitioning the FCC to do so, and then maybe, but most likely not.   
Logged

KB8VUL

  • Member
  • Posts: 654
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2020, 07:36:42 AM »



2 meters is a wasteland. It has become a band for emcomm whack jobs/survival types who think the only time you should key there is when there is a disaster.
KC5CSG

And a key reason for this is that a vast majority of hams are frankly too nice. 
When confronted with these idiots that think that 2 meters is strictly for ANYTHING other than general ham use they need to be chastised and corrected.  I am tired of that crap.  I have heard various emcomm leaders say this to their members.. And it gets a very direct response, EVERY time.  If they want controlled communications, spend money, get a licensed frequency in THEIR name, and then they own it, and can control it.  Otherwise, ham radio is for the hobby, not for their power tripping God complex nonsense to try to mandate that people should not talk on ham radio except for emergency communications.  And further directing ANY licensed ham operator that ANY ham radio usage is limited is in direct violation of FCC rules and the next time they bother to say it, the FCC WILL BE NOTIFIED that they are using ham radio for commercial usage and it needs to be dealt with.  And the Official Observers out there should be sending them notices if they hear this crap on the air.  But many of you say NOTHING.  Don't say nothing.  We want to be cordial to other hams.  But these folks aren't hams.  They got a ham license so they can do their wacking with cheap junk radios on the ham bands.  That's not being a ham operator.  That's using ham radio for a clearly commercial purpose.
Logged

W9IQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 8866
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2020, 08:55:45 AM »

Emcom and prepping do not qualify as commercial communications. This is a codified purpose for ham radio in the US.

Keep in mind that an amateur radio repeater owner in the US jurisdiction has the backing of the FCC to kick you off their repeater for any reason they care to dream up or without any apparent reason at all. Since that repeater is on a frequency coordinated channel, they do effectively 'own the frequency'.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
- Glenn W9IQ

God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday and Friday by the wave theory and the devil runs it on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by the Quantum theory.

KB8VUL

  • Member
  • Posts: 654
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2020, 10:05:34 AM »

Emcom and prepping do not qualify as commercial communications. This is a codified purpose for ham radio in the US.

Keep in mind that an amateur radio repeater owner in the US jurisdiction has the backing of the FCC to kick you off their repeater for any reason they care to dream up or without any apparent reason at all. Since that repeater is on a frequency coordinated channel, they do effectively 'own the frequency'.

- Glenn W9IQ

Glenn, I question at time putting you on ignore... but you never fail to remind me. I just seem to forget to NOT click show post.
Yes, specific use of ham bands outside of hobby use is illegal when it's ONLY used for that purpose.
Yes, emcomm is PART of amateur radio.  NOT the only part.
SAR is not emcomm.  It's under public safety communications and if a SAR group files with the FCC for a license they get frequencies from the public safety pool and not the general SMR pool.  CERT is the same way.  CERT is even designated as first responders when they are activated under the FEMA guidelines... ARES is not ever considered first responders in any situation.

As far as the comments above about NOT talking on ham radio EXCEPT for communications for the SAR / CERT / whatever group.  I have been in meeting where the group leader has said that ham radio is for EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ONLY and not for ANY other use.  And told the members that they would be removed from the group if they were using ham radio of other purposes.  This is patently wrong, yes, in the middle of the meeting I spoke up, and corrected the group leader who though it wise to question me.  When he found out that I had been a ham longer than he had been alive, and was there by direction of the EMA director for the county, he decided to shut up.  When you, yourself decide to only use ham radio for one specific purpose.  Be that DXing, contesting, packet radio, AREDN, satellite communication or what ever, that's YOUR choice.  When a leader of a group MANDATES that you can only use ham radio for a specific purpose then that is illegal, because it DOES make it a replacement for commercial radio communications.  It would be no different than the moderators on here saying no one can be a member of this forum and talk on HF.  It's crap.. no real ham would do it.  Unfortunately, the league says nothing to these fools because ultimately it may push them away and lower the potential number of members.  And the only reason for it is they can jump on OTHER peoples infrastructure (repeaters) which they typically do. And conduct their business.  And yes it IS a commercial endeavor.  Because if they so much as drink a cup of coffee that is provided be ANYONE other than the individual, they are being paid for ham radio usage in their endeavor and that makes it commercial and therefore illegal.

 We can sit here and split hairs all you want.  I have my opinion and you have yours.  They don't seem to match on this topic, or you do agree but choose to agitate.  Might be why you have 4700 and some posts. 
Your a really smart guy, engineer, and obviously well educated. 
Not so sure about your delivery skills though.
Logged

W9IQ

  • Member
  • Posts: 8866
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2020, 10:18:21 AM »

Yes, it is clear we disagree. But my early comments are purely from a  factual, legal perspective - I don't waste my time as a provocateur.

Someone making an erroneous statement about the purpose of ham radio does not constitute an illegal act. Nor does carrying out that assertion on the air if the action is otherwise permitted under the regulations. The FCC rules provide wide latitude with regard to the imminent threat to life or property. Assisting police, fire, SARS, etc. are well within that scope. If these agencies relied solely on amateur radio frequencies, that may be a problem. But from my experience, this is not the case.

- Glenn W9IQ
Logged
- Glenn W9IQ

God runs electromagnetics on Monday, Wednesday and Friday by the wave theory and the devil runs it on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday by the Quantum theory.

W9FIB

  • Member
  • Posts: 3501
    • HomeURL
Re: FCC Proposals to Reallocate 3.4 & 5.8 GHz Bands
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2020, 02:28:24 AM »

So if an Emcom group of Hams coordinate a repeater, build it and get it on the air for their use, they should not be able to restrict it to the purpose it was built for? Not to mention restrict who uses it?

How about a repeater that allows only a membership to use it?

Seems to me there is enough room these days for specialized repeaters as well as open general usage repeaters. Seems to be rather simple to understand that if you don't want to participate in a special purpose group, then you just use other repeaters and avoid interference with the group members.
Logged
73, Stan
Travelling the world one signal at a time.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up