The memo I sent out yesterday (below) was so shamefully full of errors and omissions that I feel obligated to send a corrected one out now. I do apologize. I was trying to get this out before COB yesterday and I had flown home very early Monday morning from Atlanta after a long weekend visiting my son, so those are the best excuses for the typos that I can come up with. Sorry for it. A corrected version appears below. In thinking further about this last evening, one aspect of the proposal that could work in our favor is the potential availability of some new, off-the-shelf equipment for expanding Amateur use of the 10 GHz band: a concept suggested by Tom's constituent who brought this petition to Tom's attention in the first place. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Chris Imlay <w3kd@aol.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@arrl.org> Cc: ehare <ehare@arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Aug 26, 2013 3:53 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:21958] Petition for Rule Making Filed; 10 GHz Band Threatened. Some alert ARRL members in Tom Frenaye's Division spotted and brought to his attention the attached Petition for Rule Making that was filed May 1, 2013 by Mimosa Networks, Inc. of Los Gatos, CA (a wireless broadband products manufacturer). The petition seeks a Part 90 mobile allocation in the 10.000-10.500 GHz band, and service rules permitting Part 90 licensing of mobile wireless service providers in that band. It has not been given an RM number and it has not yet been on any public notice. It will at some point, perhaps soon, be given an RM number and it will be placed on public notice and that will trigger a 30-day comment window. This is not a band that was studied closely by the National Broadband Plan Committee because it is significantly higher in frequency than the NBP bands typically considered. However, the NBP Committee did anticipate that this might be a band that would be a target for broadband reallocation in the future. Of course, the Amateur Service has a secondary allocation at 10.0-10.5 GHz, and the Amateur-Satellite Service has a secondary allocation at 10.45-10.5 GHz. Both the Amateur Service and Amateur-Satellite Service are secondary only to Federal Government radiolocation. By footnote, NON-government radiolocation has to share with the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite on a non-interference basis (i.e. they cannot interfere with us). The petition seeks to mimic the Part 90 licensing configuration that has existed for some years now in the 3.6 GHz band. That band is available for non-exclusive, Part 90 licensing for Wi-Max systems. Wi-Max providers are granted non-exclusive, nationwide licenses, which entitles them to then register fixed sites at various locations. Those fixed site registrations have to protect incumbent services at 3.6 GHz such as the Fixed Satellite Service and various grandfathered government users. It is a very odd licensing scheme, and one that is not very popular so far, but Mimosa is suggesting the same basic plan for the 10 GHz band, including a "no harmful interference" footnote to protect Amateur operations. However, Mimosa has a very unusual approach here. They are not arguing that Amateur Radio operators don't use the band. In fact, they concede that Amateur use of this band is increasing. They are not asking that Amateur use of the band be compromised or precluded. They instead propose to protect Amateur operations in this band by several means, including the mandatory use by wireless broadband systems of "contention-based protocols." This would not work, according to Ed Hare, at all well to prevent interference to Amateur Radio weak signal reception across long transmission paths. So, of course we will have to explain why and how this is not sufficient to protect a primary Amateur activity in the band. However, they also suggest using (apparently voluntary) "band plans" that would channelize the mobile broadband systems and backhaul fixed links to avoid popular Amateur Radio segments including our traditional weak signal segment. Their bandplan (which they are NOT proposing to incorporate in the Rules, but some version of it could be incorporated in the rules pursuant to a counterproposal we might make) looks like this: APPENDIX B: Proposed Band Plan Proposed 10.0-10.5 GHz Band Plan Frequency
From To Use 10.000 10.010 Guard Band 10.010 10.030 Channel 1 10.030 10.050 Channel 2 10.050 10.070 Channel 3 10.070 10.090 Channel 4 10.090 10.110 Channel 5 10.110 10.130 Channel 6 10.130 10.150 Channel 7 10.150 10.170 Channel 8 10.170 10.190 Channel 9 10.190 10.210 Channel 10 10.210 10.230 Channel 11 10.230 10.250 Channel 12 10.250 10.270 Channel 13 10.270 10.290 Channel 14 10.290 10.310 Channel 15 10.310 10.330 Channel 16 10.330 10.350 Channel 17 10.350 10.370 Amateur Calling Band 10.370 10.390 Channel 18 10.390 10.410 Channel 19 10.410 10.430 Channel 20 10.430 10.450 Channel 21 10.450 10.500 Amateur Satellite
The channel numbers refer to wireless broadband channels. the guard band at the bottom is apparently not for our benefit but for adjacent band users. It is apparent that Mimosa is intending to urge licensees to avoid the weak signal segment near 10.360 GHz and as well the entire Amateur Satellite allocation in this band, which is a good start but those exclusions should be mandatory, I would think. Finally, they propose a footnote in the table of allocations that would require that mobile Part 90 wireless systems protect Amateur Radio. So our defense of this band does not NECESSARILY have to trigger the normal, knee-jerk, "defend every Hertz to the death," scorched-Earth administrative litigation approach that we have used in the past. Arguably, that might not work here in any case, since this is broadband and since there is no proposal that on its face would limit Amateur operations in the band. We could propose some compromise, or we could take any of a series of "constructive opposition" positions as the Board or the Executive Committee might direct. Normally, I would inform the Executive Committee of this type of petition, because the EC is having a meeting soon and the Board isn't, and because this petition is a topic that the EC is charged with addressing typically. However, Tom Frenaye asked that I circulate it to the entire Board, and it is a good idea to do so in this instance because we have not had a full-band spectrum threat of this nature in some time (and because this particular petition necessitates a zero-based analysis of a proper ARRL response. The Executive Committee will be meeting on October 5. This may or may not wait that long. It has been on file at FCC for four months without action, but it addresses mobile broadband which would normally entitle it to some priority at FCC. However, the EC will likely be discussing the strategy for addressing this spectrum threat and it would be helpful to them to have some thoughts on the table.... In any case, let's keep in mind that this is a broadband proposal and that makes a complete, successful defense difficult. What makes it more so, and unusual in this respect, is that the Petitioner is seemingly trying to avoid a confrontation with ARRL, or at least is attempting to limit our normal ammunition dump of arguments. We have a headstart in addressing this petition (also an unusual situation) so some strategizing is called for, it seems to me. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv