[arrl-odv:29000] Fwd: threat to 5.9 GHz spectrum used by HamWAN
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
Some background for the group HamWan, is a data network built by amateurs in the pacific NW. Primarily in use in and around the Puget Sound area of Washington State. The bandplan they list covers from 5.815 up thru 5.925 for "client access" and they use the non amateur channels for the backhaul links. AREDN is another data network in use, doing essentially the same thing. A snippit of the channel list is below.
From what I can tell looking at the FCC chart, this letter references the spectrum from 5.850-5.925 as it is the only listed block of 75 Mhz as referenced in the note. An attachment is included here with that data. If that is the case, then they are looking at the only non-shared channels we have available for these systems.
As I just bought a pair of Microtic dishes for use in our AREDN network, I will be watching this close as well. :) Mark, HDX [image: image.png] On Wed, Nov 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
Thanks, Mark. I haven't had a chance to dig into this yet, but a knowledgeable person I saw last night at a local ARES meeting confirmed what you stated. This appears to be a direct threat to our 5.9 GHz allocation. 73; Mike W7VO
On November 21, 2019 at 7:19 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Some background for the group
HamWan, is a data network built by amateurs in the pacific NW. Primarily in use in and around the Puget Sound area of Washington State. The bandplan they list covers from 5.815 up thru 5.925 for "client access" and they use the non amateur channels for the backhaul links.
AREDN is another data network in use, doing essentially the same thing. A snippit of the channel list is below.
From what I can tell looking at the FCC chart, this letter references the spectrum from 5.850-5.925 as it is the only listed block of 75 Mhz as referenced in the note. An attachment is included here with that data. If that is the case, then they are looking at the only non-shared channels we have available for these systems.
As I just bought a pair of Microtic dishes for use in our AREDN network, I will be watching this close as well. :)
Mark, HDX
[image.png]
On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 4:07 PM Michael Ritz < w7vo@comcast.net mailto: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 mailto:wa7ptm-2019@aberle.net > > To: Mike Ritz - W7VO < w7vo@comcast.net mailto:w7vo@comcast.net > > Cc: Monte Simpson - W7FF < wwasm@comcast.net mailto: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 mailto: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
I don't know if the attachments went out, I don't seem to get an email back from when I post. If not, ask, direct and I can email direct for anyone wanting it. Mark, HDX On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 7:28 AM Michael Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> wrote:
Thanks, Mark. I haven't had a chance to dig into this yet, but a knowledgeable person I saw last night at a local ARES meeting confirmed what you stated. This appears to be a direct threat to our 5.9 GHz allocation.
73; Mike W7VO
On November 21, 2019 at 7:19 AM Mark J Tharp <kb7hdx@gmail.com> wrote:
Some background for the group
HamWan, is a data network built by amateurs in the pacific NW. Primarily in use in and around the Puget Sound area of Washington State. The bandplan they list covers from 5.815 up thru 5.925 for "client access" and they use the non amateur channels for the backhaul links.
AREDN is another data network in use, doing essentially the same thing. A snippit of the channel list is below.
From what I can tell looking at the FCC chart, this letter references the spectrum from 5.850-5.925 as it is the only listed block of 75 Mhz as referenced in the note. An attachment is included here with that data. If that is the case, then they are looking at the only non-shared channels we have available for these systems.
As I just bought a pair of Microtic dishes for use in our AREDN network, I will be watching this close as well. :)
Mark, HDX
[image: image.png]
On Wed, Nov 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
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
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 of w7vo@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
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 of w7vo@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
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<http://davidsiddall-law.com> <david@davidsiddall-law.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of w7vo@comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@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<mailto: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<mailto:wa7ptm-2019@aberle.net>> > > To: Mike Ritz - W7VO <w7vo@comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>> > > Cc: Monte Simpson - W7FF <wwasm@comcast.net<mailto: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<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
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
....and of course, my apology for the double negative.... 73, Kermit On Monday, November 25, 2019, 10:12:22 AM CST, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Agreed, Kermit. I am getting questions about this and would like to be able to point to an authoritative source. Ria N2RJ On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:12, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
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 of w7vo@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 _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I just exchanged messages with WW1ME, so I know that he is working on a story for the website in normal manner. The EC instructed me to oppose the 9 cm deletion, and we are working on that. While I am in the process of emailing a list of people believed to use 9 cm that K5UR provided me, if you have or know anyone who has been active on the band, or familiar with it in some way, please have them email me information (at k3zj@arrl.org). Ammunition is useful. (I already have a response from AMSAT that two satellites had planned to use this band, but neither got to operational stage.) 73, Dave On 11/25/19, 12:15 PM, "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: Agreed, Kermit. I am getting questions about this and would like to be able to point to an authoritative source. Ria N2RJ On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:12, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: > > 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 of w7vo@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 > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Hi David, I've emailed Andrea, K2EZ who I think is a good resource and has many contacts in that community (VHF/UHF/MIcrowave weak signal and rovers). Hopefully she can help you guys. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 12:26, david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
I just exchanged messages with WW1ME, so I know that he is working on a story for the website in normal manner. The EC instructed me to oppose the 9 cm deletion, and we are working on that.
While I am in the process of emailing a list of people believed to use 9 cm that K5UR provided me, if you have or know anyone who has been active on the band, or familiar with it in some way, please have them email me information (at k3zj@arrl.org). Ammunition is useful. (I already have a response from AMSAT that two satellites had planned to use this band, but neither got to operational stage.)
73, Dave
On 11/25/19, 12:15 PM, "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed, Kermit. I am getting questions about this and would like to be able to point to an authoritative source.
Ria N2RJ
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:12, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: > > 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 of w7vo@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 > _______________________________________________ > arrl-odv mailing list > arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Great, thanks. Yes, Andrea is VERY active on a lot of the bands, that is for sure! On 11/25/19, 1:05 PM, "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: Hi David, I've emailed Andrea, K2EZ who I think is a good resource and has many contacts in that community (VHF/UHF/MIcrowave weak signal and rovers). Hopefully she can help you guys. 73 Ria, N2RJ On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 12:26, david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote: > > I just exchanged messages with WW1ME, so I know that he is working on a story for the website in normal manner. The EC instructed me to oppose the 9 cm deletion, and we are working on that. > > While I am in the process of emailing a list of people believed to use 9 cm that K5UR provided me, if you have or know anyone who has been active on the band, or familiar with it in some way, please have them email me information (at k3zj@arrl.org). Ammunition is useful. (I already have a response from AMSAT that two satellites had planned to use this band, but neither got to operational stage.) > > 73, Dave > > > On 11/25/19, 12:15 PM, "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote: > > Agreed, Kermit. I am getting questions about this and would like to be > able to point to an authoritative source. > > Ria > N2RJ > > On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:12, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv > <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: > > > > 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 of w7vo@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 > > _______________________________________________ > > arrl-odv mailing list > > arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org > > https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv > >
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
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
Hi all: Running through an airport to catch a plane. Quick note. The 9 cm article is up on our website: http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-to-oppose-proposal-to-eliminate-3-3-3-5-ghz-am... 73 Rick - K5UR Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 25, 2019, at 12:26 PM, david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
I just exchanged messages with WW1ME, so I know that he is working on a story for the website in normal manner. The EC instructed me to oppose the 9 cm deletion, and we are working on that.
While I am in the process of emailing a list of people believed to use 9 cm that K5UR provided me, if you have or know anyone who has been active on the band, or familiar with it in some way, please have them email me information (at k3zj@arrl.org). Ammunition is useful. (I already have a response from AMSAT that two satellites had planned to use this band, but neither got to operational stage.)
73, Dave
On 11/25/19, 12:15 PM, "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed, Kermit. I am getting questions about this and would like to be able to point to an authoritative source.
Ria N2RJ
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:12, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
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 of w7vo@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 _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you Rick. This will be in my newsletter this week and also the division social media. I've also contacted two subject matter experts in my division to assist David Siddall. Let's roll... Ria N2RJ On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 17:53, Rick Roderick via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Hi all:
Running through an airport to catch a plane. Quick note. The 9 cm article is up on our website:
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-to-oppose-proposal-to-eliminate-3-3-3-5-ghz-am...
73 Rick - K5UR
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 25, 2019, at 12:26 PM, david davidsiddall-law.com <david@davidsiddall-law.com> wrote:
I just exchanged messages with WW1ME, so I know that he is working on a story for the website in normal manner. The EC instructed me to oppose the 9 cm deletion, and we are working on that.
While I am in the process of emailing a list of people believed to use 9 cm that K5UR provided me, if you have or know anyone who has been active on the band, or familiar with it in some way, please have them email me information (at k3zj@arrl.org). Ammunition is useful. (I already have a response from AMSAT that two satellites had planned to use this band, but neither got to operational stage.)
73, Dave
On 11/25/19, 12:15 PM, "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
Agreed, Kermit. I am getting questions about this and would like to be able to point to an authoritative source.
Ria N2RJ
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:12, Kermit Carlson via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
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:
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 of w7vo@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
_______________________________________________
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
Thanks, David. Great information, and it sounds better than it might otherwise seem. The point is that we were secondary to start with, and still are. I've received no complaints about 3.3 GHz yet, but thanks for the heads up on that one. Breaks over, time to get back to the test.... 73; Mike W7VO
On November 22, 2019 at 5:06 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 of w7vo@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
participants (7)
-
david davidsiddall-law.com -
Kermit Carlson -
Mark J Tharp -
Michael Ritz -
Mickey Baker -
Rick Roderick -
rjairam＠gmail.com