Hi, all, Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! I'm the Director-elect for the Southeastern Division. I've spoken to many of you and look forward to meeting you all in January in Newington. Mr. Siddall, thanks for a opposing this spectrum grab. I understand that this is an "in house" discussion, so I'm going to let fly with opinion. Forgive me if I'm out of scope or premature before my term begins, but I will endeavor to be polite. 9cm use in the Division - I have found a single major use case for this allocation in reply to my queries to SMs and others in the Southeastern Division this week. In the West Central Florida Section, the Tampa Amateur Radio Club provides Internet control and VoIP service for their clubhouse and several repeaters via 5.65 GHz point to point links. Loss of this frequency would result in loss of connectivity of these repeaters and of the Tampa clubhouse. The UHF/VHF network and remote operation of the four HF stations in metro Tampa and a landline-type VoIP connection to the clubhouse also uses this link. One of the repeaters and an omnidirectional link is at the 800' level on a TV tower. The Ford proposal - I know we don't want to engineer Ford's product for them, but we know that the reliability of any segment of spectrum over the diverse landscape of the United States is not 100% reliable. The dependence upon this (or any) exclusive spectrum segment as "fundamental" in the "industry's effort to dramatically improve transportation safety" is clear hyperbole that ignores the environmental nature of radio frequency technology and an attempt to use public spectrum to establish a competitive advantage - in a matter of public safety? Will Ford's plan result in unsafe conditions in the case of noise or interference? The evidence so far is that only one automaker is pursuing this frequency allocation and the Ford letter implies the need for a non-shared allocation. If there were a new technology that were that crucial to transportation safety, certainly Ford would invoke relationships through industry associations such as the Automotive Safety Council to support this request and make their intellectual property a standard. Otherwise, are we subject to seeing a series of similar requests from each automotive manufacturer as they develop similar competitive technology? What if every aviation organization required their own aviation band? More likely, it enables a build out of a network using cheap components already available in a 5.8GHz version. I hope you are all having (or have had) a Happy Thanksgiving and I am humbled to be a part of this great organization. 73, Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL *“Tell me, and I will listen. Show me, and I will understand. Involve me, and I will learn.” *Teton Lakota, American Indian Saying. On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 9:12 PM david davidsiddall-law.com < david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
Ford Motor Company is behind the "CV2X" system (NOT a DX call from Uruguay) that is the primary applicant for the 5.9 GHz spectrum where we currently have a secondary allocation. On the spectrum sharing point, Ford wrote FCC Chairman Pai: "Ford has always been willing to share the spectrum if it's conclusively demonstrated that non-safety applications will not degrade the performance of CV2X or jeopardize the availability of spectrum in the future." At least for now, the FCC seems disinclined to discuss removing our secondary allocation. But I am keeping close watch ... The entire letter in .jpeg is attached. (It has not made it into the FCC public record yet, but Chairman Pai publicly shared it earlier today.)
73, Dave
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv