Hello Hello Thank you David for the review of the 3GHz. situation.it would be a good idea if the details about 3456 was communicated to the membership by the ARRL.Org website. The lack of public stories about this challenge from the League is not going unnoticed in most of the VHF/UHF/Microwave forums. 73, Kermit W9XA On Saturday, November 23, 2019, 9:56:28 AM CST, david davidsiddall-law. com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote: Everything I have written was publicly released by the Commission on Thursday and can be used, including the links to the actual documents. It might be worth noting in anything going to the public amateur community that these are DRAFT Commission proposals that are subject to change before the scheduled vote on December 12. There will be opportunity for filing comments and reply comments with the Commission after the final notices are released. 73, Dave K3ZJ From: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> Date: Friday, November 22, 2019 at 8:24 PM To: "david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com> Cc: Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net>, "arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org" <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:29006] Re: Fwd: threat to 5.9 GHz spectrum used by HamWAN Hi David, Thank you for the very detailed response. How much of this is inside baseball vs public consumption? I want to address this in one of my newsletters as I’ve been getting questions. 73 Ria N2RJ On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:06 PM david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote: Mike, Here are the actual details of the FCC proposal in its current form. This is from a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as released by the Commission yesterday for consideration at its meeting on December 12. There is a bigger issue with 3.300-3.500 GHz, which also is teed up for the same FCC meeting on Dec. 12 in which the FCC draft proposal would completely delete the secondary 9 cm allocation. We're already working on that with the EC. At 5.9 (5 cm) band: 1. At issue is the 5.850 - 5.925 GHz portion of the amateur secondary allocation, which is the top 75 MHz of the amateur 5.650-5.925 GHz secondary band. 2. The FCC is *NOT* proposing to delete or otherwise amend the amateur allocation. As presented to the Commissioners, the amateur allocation would continue secondary as is. 3. However, the PRIMARY allocation for 5.850-5.925 would change, which is the non-federal service(s) to which amateur is secondary. 4. The current Dedicated Short Range Communication (DSRC) in the Intelligent Transportation Service (ITS), currently primary throughout, would be pushed into the top 30 MHz of the band (5.895-5.925 GHz). Also, a new proposed application, "Cellular Vehicle to Everything (C-V2X) would be permitted to share the DSRC spectrum the top 20 of 30 MHz of the DSRC spectrum, and the Commission more neutrally would seek comment on whether C-V2X also should be permitted in the remaining 10 MHz of DSRC spectrum (5.895-5.905 GHz), where additional coordination requirements with federal users apply. 5. Remaining lower 45 MHz (5.850-5.895 GHz) would be added to the spectrum used for unlicensed Part 15 (WiFi), so their band would expand from 5.150-5.850 GHz (with coordination procedures and limitations in some portions) to 5.150-5.895 GHz. (The rules would be the same as now exist below 5.850 GHz, it is being proposed as an expansion.) 6. In the draft, the amateur secondary allocation is acknowledged but not otherwise addressed. Anyone wishing to read the actual documentation, which is a draft decision with cover summary can view it at this link: https://tinyurl.com/yx5jyx6m. NOTE that the proposal can change before the Commissioners vote on Dec. 12. Bottom line: the Commission staff is proposing that the Commission recognize that the 20-year old allocation of spectrum to DSRC has not been put to the intensive use that had been envisoned. Instead, other spectrum and services increasingly are being used for vehicle communication purposes (such as 76-81 GHz, another amateur band recently affected). So now, after years of negotiations with the Department of Transportation BTW, the FCC has come up with this proposal. No change for the amateur allocation, but of course as a practical matter, more intensive use by primary users is expected and that will restrict us as a secondary user. Feel free to comment here, or email me directly at k3zj@arrl.org. I will be following up on the 9 cm band proposal tomorrow on this reflector (notwithstanding CQWW). If you want to read the FCC proposal on that one, use this link: https://tinyurl.com/wo4m9fc 73, Dave K3ZJ On 11/22/19, 2:15 PM, "arrl-odv on behalf of Michael Ritz" <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org on behalf ofw7vo@comcast.net> wrote: ODV has been silent on this so far, but I was asked again last night at a meeting about what we are doing about the potential threat to the 5.9 GHz spectrum involving HamWAN and AREDN. The rumors are flying up here. Who at HQ should I contact about this? Thanks, and good luck to those participating in the CQWW CW test this weekend (ur 599 3) 73; Mike W7VO > On November 20, 2019 at 4:07 PM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote: > > > This, at first glance, seems to be a direct assault on our 5.9 GHz allocations. That said, I'm not aware of exactly what frequencies HamWAN uses, and how this will affect that emerging technology amateur radio program. Anybody know anything about this? > > 73; > Mike > W7VO > > > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > > From: Steve - WA7PTM <wa7ptm-2019@aberle.net> > > To: Mike Ritz - W7VO <w7vo@comcast.net> > > Cc: Monte Simpson - W7FF <wwasm@comcast.net> > > Date: November 20, 2019 at 3:03 PM > > Subject: threat to 5.9 GHz spectrum used by HamWAN > > > > Mike: > > > > Please pass this along to the spectrum defense folks at HQ: > > https://www.fcc.gov/document/chairman-pais-remarks-new-59-ghz-band-proposal > > > > The use of this spectrum in Western Washington is significant, and our > > EOC-to-EOC amateur radio data infrastructure in that band is growing > > rapidly. > > > > Thanks, > > Steve > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv