"So what to do? I think the ARRL should have posted this info on this
reflector and others informing us on what we can do. I also think they
(ARRL) should notify each VHF/UHF contest club to disseminate this
information."
I think the ARRL is part of the "good old boys" problem. Slap each other on
the back and stick head in the sand.
This is all about money, BIG MONEY. Data data data. Bandwidth is power. FCC
looks to make Billons
Oh and don't forget to send a check to the spectrum defense fund. Sorry, I
sound so cynical but the fact is we have NO CLOUT!!
Like truckers and farmers, it's hard to get 2 hams to agree on most
anything.
Hate to say it but the die is cast. 900 and 1.2 can't be far off their
radar. Maybe 70 cm too!
Steve K7SWS
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 10:48 AM Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com>
wrote:
> I wonder what has changed to cause continued amateur use of the band to
> apparently be subject to deletion ?
>
> When I was involved in a project in Canada that looked at using similar
> spectrum professionally approx 5 years ago, from my perspective the
> regulators in Canada seemed supportive of continued amateur access on a
> shared basis to at least some of the band. At the time I thought the
> increasing commercial use might have been a good thing for amateurs as
> relatively low priced broad band equipment was becoming available. To be
> transparent I don't have any current insight into the Canadian plans for
> this band.
>
> My $.02 worth, the amateur community would be better off looking for
> smaller chunks of microwave spectrum that can realistically be shared with
> other users (and trying to partner with those spectrum users) rather than
> trying to fight for the entire shared allocations we currently have. In my
> view some professional users might be more willing to share than others (if
> only to make it harder for the spectrum they use to be eventually taken
> over by other users.) I realize this may make co ordinated world wide
> allocations difficult, but some hard choices may need to be made.
>
> 73
> Mark S
> VE7AFZ
>
> mark@alignedsolutions.com
> 604 762 4099
>
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 8:59 AM, Joshua Arritt <jarritt@vt.edu> wrote:
> >
> > This wasn't a fight for ARRL only -- but ARAs worldwide.
> >
> > Communications policy and spectrum allocation has been a global community
> > matter from day one, respectfully. We must recognize that to not
> > mis-charge the term or situation politically. Players left and right --
> > globally -- are complicit, because no one wants to be left holding the
> bag
> > that "held up broadband deployment".
> >
> > Great band, 9cm, and 6cm, 13cm with it. But these are the precise spots
> > cellular wants. 23cm is not immune etiher. Dark skies indeed.
> >
> > Incumbent cm-wave microwave spectrum use -- amateur and traditional
> > commercial uses alike -- has never before been so threatened.
> >
> > Use these bands while you can.
> >
> > VY 73 DE KF4YLM
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:32 AM Jay RM <w9rm@calmesapartners.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anybody who has been paying attention to the impending switch from 4G
> to 5G
> >> cellular technology has known, or at least strongly suspected, this was
> >> going to happen. The move to open the 3 GHz band for cellular
> >> communications has been ongoing for some time. As a matter of fact, the
> >> spectrum from 3.4 to 3.6 GHz has been designated as "globally
> harmonized".
> >> In other words, a world-wide operating band. This spectrum was
> reallocated
> >> in the UK a couple years ago and most ITU Region 1 countries have
> reserved
> >> it for commercial use for many years. The USA is VERY late to the 3 GHZ
> >> party. This "harmonization" was discussed and acted upon during
> WRC2015.
> >> Read all about it here:
> >>
> >>
> https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/3-GHz-in-the-5G-era.pdf
> >>
> >> The "MOBILE NOW Act", passed in 2017 does not specify ANY frequency
> bands.
> >> It mandates the "making available" ("ripping away from current
> occupants"
> >> in non-Govspeak) of 255 MHz of new spectrum below 6 GHz. One can read a
> >> summary of the bill here:
> >> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/19
> >>
> >> The old satellite C-Band (remember the big old TVRO dishes of the
> 1970's)
> >
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
>
--
Steve / K7SWS
Formerly KE7IHG
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|