This sounds similar to the situation with the proposed use of certain spectrum
by a company called LightSquared.
Mark Spencer
mark@alignedsolutions.com
604 762 4099
> On Nov 26, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Randy Wing <winger55552001@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Related:
>
> This is from AF Today magazine:
>
> To Protect GPS Satellites, Esper Is Against Private 5G Proposal
> Defense Secretary Mark Esper wants the Federal Communications Commission to
> reject a proposal by Ligado Networks to use L-Band spectrum for 5G, claiming
> that the system could jeopardize GPS services. C4ISRNET
>
> To protect GPS satellites, Esper is against private 5G proposal
> To protect GPS satellites, Esper is against private 5G proposal
> A plan to use L-Band spectrum for 5G could disrupt GPS satellites, the
> Secretary of Defense said.
>
>
> Ligado Networks has 40 MHz of spectrum licenses in the nationwide block of
> 1500 MHz to 1700 MHz spectrum in the L-Band. With it, the company is
> developing a satellite-terrestrial network to support the emerging 5G market
> and Internet of Things applications.
>
>
> Randy, N0LD
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:51 PM, Mark Spencer
> <mark@alignedsolutions.com> wrote:
> Hi Dana.
>
> The pessimistic side of me thinks by lobbying for new exclusive microwave
> bands and assuming we actually get them, in the long run the amateur
> community may be helping future commercial interests who will eventually want
> to take the spectrum over. The recent moves by some (that so far seem to
> have been unsuccessful) to encroach on the 144 MHz band and the historical
> loss of the bottom 2 MHz of the 220 thru 225 MHz band don't fill me with a
> lot of confidence about the ability of the amateur community to maintain
> exclusive allocations in prime RF real estate especially if the amateur use
> of the frequencies in question is minimal. Hopefully I am being overly
> pessimistic.
>
> On the other hand the 70 cm band seems to have a number of other users (such
> as differential GPS base stations) and I suspect clearing them all out would
> be a challenge, plus the radar users are probably going to be reluctant to
> leave as well. As others have mentioned I also suspect clearing out the ISM
> bands would be hard.
>
> I suspect the 23 cm band and the issues vis a vis the Galileo navigation
> system (probably along with other issues) may present another challenge for
> ongoing amateur access to at least some of the band for at least some
> amateurs. This might be an area where a regional approach might work better
> than a global one. The U.S. approach to Galileo usage within the U.S. also
> seems promising vis a vis amateur access to 23 cm at least in the U.S.
>
> Anyways thanks to all who are working behind the scenes to help keep our
> access to the spectrum. I do appreciate it.
>
> 73
> Mark S
> VE7AFZ
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mark Spencer
>
> Aligned Solutions Co.
> mark@alignedsolutions.com
> 604 762 4099
>
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 5:01 PM, Dana Shtun <ve3dss@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Best thing we could do is go for narrow primary bands within or adjacent to
> > the bands being examined… that said… we do need microwave bands for space
> > communications, as well as terrestrial
> > narrow band point to point (aka DX) comms….
> >
> > We have been sharing since the end of WW II…so this is nothing new, but
> > sharing with govt radar vs cell tech isn’t quite the same …. hopefully we
> > can work out a deal….lets make a deal eh.
> >
> > Look on the bright side, all kinds of technology will be there for us to
> > utilize as well...
> >
> > Dana VE3DS
> > Editor Six Metres and Down in TCA
> > Custodian VE3ONT
> >
> > On Nov 25, 2019, at 15:54, Mark Spencer <mark@alignedsolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes that is a good point re 900 MHz. Maybe lobbying for additional similar
> > ISM / un licensed or lightly licensed bands that amateurs could have shared
> > allocations in (or perhaps looking for existing allocations that might be
> > shareable) might make sense as a go forwards plan ?
> >
> > That being said if the authorities can be convinced that amateurs deserve
> > additional exclusive microwave allocations that would be ideal. I am
> > doubtful that will ever happen, but maybe the amateur Emergency
> > communications role might provide a way forwards ?
> >
> > Some of the broad band data communications done by amateurs in support of
> > the EMCOM role that I am aware of is done with wifi type gear operated
> > under amateur rules and that type of useage seems to indicate that shared
> > spectrum is useful to amateurs ? Some time ago I looked at ways to use
> > wifi gear and PC and smart phone apps to make contest style microwave
> > contacts in the ISM shared bands but there was little interest from others
> > in my area in pursuing this.
> >
> >
> > 73
> >
> > Mark S
> > VE7AFZ
> >
> > mark@alignedsolutions.com
> > 604 762 4099
> >
> >> On Nov 25, 2019, at 11:48 AM, John Geiger <af5cc2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think 900mhz will be of much interest to cellular companies as
> >> there is too many other users in that band right now, as it is a ISM band.
> >> Too much RF pollution as it currently is, and too many users to move. At
> >> least I am hoping that is true.
> >>
> >> Getting congress to stop the 3.4GHZ relocation will be tough when each
> >> senator or representative has less than 100 constituents who use 3.4GHZ
> >> (many with 0 constituents) a
> _______________________________________________
> VHFcontesting mailing list
> VHFcontesting@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|