This is on the ARRL website, but I think it’s worth repeating here…..Dan
SB QST ARL ARLB023
ARRL to Oppose Proposal to Eliminate 3.3 – 3.5 GHz Amateur Allocation
At its December 12 open meeting, the FCC will consider adopting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that proposes to remove the amateur radio 9-centimeter allocation at 3.3 – 3.5 GHz. ARRL plans to comment in opposition to the proposed action. According to an FCC “Fact Sheet,” the proceeding WT Docket 19-348, “Facilitating Shared Use in the 3.1 – 3.55 GHz Band,” is a follow-on from the MOBILE NOW Act, approved by the 115th Congress, which requires the FCC and the US Department of Commerce to make available new spectrum for mobile and fixed wireless broadband use. It also requires the FCC to work with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to evaluate whether commercial wireless services and federal incumbents could share spectrum between 3.1 and 3.55 GHz. NTIA manages spectrum allocated to federal government users.
The Fact Sheet can be found online in PDF format at, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360941A1.pdf .
“This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would propose to remove the existing non-federal allocations in the 3.3 – 3.55 GHz band as a step towards potential future shared use between federal incumbents and commercial users,” the FCC Fact Sheet explains. “By taking the initial step needed to clear the band of allocations for non-federal incumbents, the Commission furthers its continued efforts to make more mid-band spectrum potentially available to support next generation wireless networks – consistent with the mandate of the MOBILE NOW [Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless] Act.”
The NPRM proposes to clear the 3.3 – 3.55 GHz band of existing non-federal users by removing non-federal secondary radiolocation and amateur allocations [emphasis added] in the 3.3 – 3.55 GHz band and to relocate incumbent non-federal users out of the band. The FCC would seek comment on relocation options and “transition mechanisms” for incumbent non-federal users, either to the 3.1 – 3.3 GHz band or to other frequencies, and on how to ensure that non-federal secondary operations in the 3.1 – 3.3 GHz band will continue to protect federal radar systems.
Regarding the Amateur and Amateur-Satellite Service allocations, the FCC NPRM asks whether existing amateur spectrum in other bands might support operations currently conducted in the 3.3 – 3.5 GHz band. The 3.40 – 3.41 GHz segment is designated for amateur satellite communication. “We seek comment on the extent to which the band is used for this purpose, whether existing satellites can operate on other amateur satellite bands, and on an appropriate timeframe for terminating these operations in this band,” the FCC NPRM says.
Also at its December 12 meeting, the FCC will consider another NPRM in WT Docket 19-138 that would “take a fresh and comprehensive look” at the rules for the 5.9 GHz band and propose, among other things, to make the lower 45 MHz of the band available for unlicensed operations and to permit “Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything” (C-V2X) operations in the upper 20 MHz of the band. The FCC is not proposing to delete or otherwise amend the amateur allocation, and it would continue as a secondary allocation, but the primary allocation for 5.850 – 5.925 GHz would change.
The amateur radio 5-centimeter allocation is 5650.0 – 5925.0 MHz, and the NPRM, if approved, would address the top 75 MHz of that amateur secondary band. While no changes are proposed to the amateur allocation, anticipated more intensive use by primary users could restrict secondary amateur use.
The band 5.850 – 5.925 GHz has been reserved for use by dedicated short-range communications (DSRC), a service in the intelligent transportation system (ITS) designed to enable vehicle-related communications, the FCC said in a Fact Sheet in WT Docket 19-138. “The Commission initiates this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to take a fresh and comprehensive look at the 5.9 GHz band rules and propose appropriate changes to ensure the spectrum supports its highest and best use.” ARRL also will file comments opposing any changes affecting the 5-centimeter amateur allocation.
This Fact Sheet can also be found online in PDF format at, https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360940A1.pdf .
Both draft FCC proposals are subject to change prior to a vote at the December 12 FCC meeting, and there will be opportunity to file comments and reply comments on the final proposals after they are released.
NNNN
/EX
Goody K3NG says
ARRL is not going to win a battle for 3.3 to 3.5 Ghz. This isn’t being anti-ARRL, it’s just reality. There is a fierce appetite for sub-6 Ghz spectrum for mobile wireless, and spectrum auctions are lucrative for the FCC. ARRL needs to be working on Plan B: what spectrum can be swapped in exchange for 3.3 to 3.5 Ghz.
Dan KB6NU says
I agree. There’s way too much pressure from commercial interests in this case.
Steve~W8SFC says
What happens to the band allocations these commercial interests abandon when they move into a higher area of the frequency spectrum? Are they free for other uses, or just left as a dead spot in the bands? Is this a game of RF musical chairs, or is there always going to be some new technology that operates at a higher level of frequency in RF, and I wonder if there is a physical limit as to how high the numbers can go or how short of a wavelength we can generate and use within the laws of physics?
It seems like all the news regarding band allocations and the wrestling for useable space in the spectrum is a little threatening to our amateur radio hobby. Does the government own the RF spectrum or does it belong to all of us as human beings? These ongoing disputes that have arisen over who gets what part of RF from our benefactors in the bureaucracy all seem to be going in favor of commercial interest and against the historic pioneers in radio, the amateur radio community. Other than being troubled by the general direction of where this is seems to be headed, I don’t know how or whether I should process this kind of information.
What I have seen since my first orbit of that giant fireball in the sky began is that when government begins to align with corporate business interests, the common people who were in an area of technology first and did the work of developing it to a useful technology, tend to lose their rights to use it. I am concerned that with each bite that FCC takes in favor of big business, ham radio loses. Normally I am an optimistic, even enthusiastic person but I am not seeing a lot to be that way about news like this.
The work of amateur radio operators took radio from a spark gap wireless telegraph to a technology that can relay Morse code, (which I believe is arguably the first digital mode of communications), and the spoken word – even musical performances of every kind – to the level that it became something of interest to big business, and hence commercial broadcast was born. Once that it became possible for industry to produce marketable radio receiver sets, the push was on to sell nearly every product imaginable via commercials to all the listening public. This too – along with other RF technologies has evolved to the point now we are beginning to have to make room for 5G devices that use that range of the spectrum. {I note also that advertising has invaded every space in communications except for amateur radio, due partly to the numbers of people that can be reached – with the exception of our hobby, which forbids such intrusions.}
So is it really just all about the Benjamins?
In spite of this, I wish all of you a happy Thanksgiving!
Steve~W8SFC says
I wish to amend my previous comments after having read the FCC’s bulletin regarding this issue. There seems to be little or no mention of amateur use of this region of the RF spectrum, and the focus is on 5G cell phone and other data comm use of this part of the band, and an as yet to be implemented automated system of communications between vehicles in traffic as a means to provide public safety by collision avoidance system activation without and in spite of driver inputs, a proposal coming from US DOT and not industry or lobbyist influences on FCC. While this may potentially stop vehicle traffic accidents in at least some cases, (where the vehicle is equipped to respond to inputs from this system), what about the rest of vehicles that are not connected in this 5GHz band? It would be a real shame to be driving you new fully 5G equipped collision avoidance mobile, only to get T boned by a farmer driving a turnip truck.
This decision is going to affect amateur satellite communications and the AREDN effort undertaken by amateur radio enthusiasts across the country, (and hotspot use was mentioned which I use weekly for our DMR net and access to other DMR operators). It seems very little consideration is given to amateur radio in this reallocation. It looks like to me more value has been placed on making room for a DOT initiative that has been making pretty slow progress toward implementation, than ongoing amateur radio uses of these segments of the RF spectrum.
I’m not comforted much by these revelations, but reading the document did lend clarification to me regarding what the goals of FCC are in this regard.
Sq5it says
Guys i am afraid we have 5G mobile system in Warsaw, Poland already in 3400- 3480MHz , tests by Orange.
James says
5G can be provisioned and managed so that Amatuer and commercial systems coexist.
It’s utter nonsense for the various governmental groups to continue the nonsense of ‘commerical allocations’ of the precious and limited bandwidth. Honest studies would show that there is massive, unused capacity in a multitudes of bandwidths. The ‘exclusive control’ mentality is just arcane in a world of modern mathematics, dynamic software filters and a myriad of methodologies that provide a more honest, cohesive Rf spectrum usage. It’d take some, at a presidential level, to straighten out the current hornets nest
of poorly administered bandwidth allocation models.
I shall not be dictatorial or condescending in this matter. BUT, a open and honest survey of how would the Rf spectrum be allocated and managed would surely collect lots of strategies, superior to the idiots that run the FCC and such.
All our governments wants is mega corporations, that pay little in tax, and the masses to heavily taxed like cattle. As an expert, with degrees in both EE and CS, it is a modern day tragedy. No wonder the kids of today have little interest in mathematically aggressive education or or advanced, technical educations. Because, in the end, there is no entrepreneurial pathway forward after earning those degrees. Our kids, due to the biased and ignorant, “big corporation first, move all the tech jobs overseas” have just given up hope.
That’s why there needs to be encouragement, for common and decent usage of the Rf spectrum and room for small commercial operators to prosper too.
Sadly, 5G could be the ‘bridge technology’ where house and land owners can act as both small commercial and social benefit types of organization, whom all prosper from a fair polity on the rules and usage of the precious Rf spectrum.
sincerely,
James Horton PE
[email protected]