[NLRS] Mimosa and 10 GHz

Mon Jul 4 00:44:04 EDT 2016

The "wide band" proposed by Mimosa in 2013 is not comparable to the wideband we've used on 
10GHz.  They wanted 200+ Watts TX power, with no power reduction for antenna gains of  30 
dB or more  (200 kW ERP).  The WBFM we've used typically 10mW (with some really QRO 
systems running 100mW) and typically 20dB gain antennas for ~1W to 10W ERP.  Also, as 
Jerry points out below, 240kHz  vs 50 MHz bandwidth are different creatures.

The Mimosa systems would be 24 x 7 back-haul systems for cell-phone like service.  (We'd 
call'em noise makers... they'd raise the noise level significantly !)

The ARRL opposed the petition (as submitted) and the FCC agreed with the League.  Mimosa 
wanted a number of "channels" with one (or two ?) "holes" about 10.368 for "protection" of 
existing services.  Mimosa has, apparently, not made any significant changes to their 
proposal but still wants the spectrum.

73 Donn
WA2VOI/0

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Gerald N. Johnson" <geraldj at netins.net>
To: <nlrs at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 1:56 AM
Subject: Re: [NLRS] Mimosa and 10 GHz

>
>
> In some areas hams are already using wide band equipment in the 2.4 and 5.6 GHz bands 
> for ARES type communication and internet expansion. I believe they are using commercial 
> equipment made for those shared bands with hardware mods like changing the reference 
> crystal so the channels don't match the IEEE standard channels and software changes to 
> include call signs in the protocols.
>
> There was a presentation on that topic I believe at CSVHF at Topeka several years ago.
>
> Other than the prohibition of pulse on our 10 GHz band (because it might interfere with 
> military radars) do we presently have an effective 10 GHz bandwidth limit? For sure FM 
> with Gunnplexors aren't quite narrow band, but only 240 kHz wide, not really high speed 
> data and 50 MHz wide.
>
> 73, Jerry, K0CQ
>
> On 7/3/2016 8:31 PM, WA2VOI, Donn wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is an important one, folks. While I don't believe anyone in the
>> upper Midwest has been approached (yet), we need to be aware of the
>> possibility.
>>
>> There is a follow-on message that I've copied onto the bottom of this
>> one... PLEASE read all the way through.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> 73 Donn
>> WA2VOI/0
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Williams via Microwave"
>> <microwave at mailmanlists.us>
>> To: <microwave at mailmanlists.us>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2016 10:47 PM
>> Subject: [Mw] Forwarded Message
>>
>>
>>> Here is a forwarded message from the SBMS, originated by Brian AF6NA.
>>> I am not sure about the questions posed, except that being careful
>>> regarding any such offers might be a good idea until we learn more.
>>>
>>> Tom WA1MBA
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> Dear Microwave Enthusiasts,
>>>
>>> You may be aware that Mimosa Networks of Santa Clara, CA filed a
>>> petition for licensing 2 or 3 years ago to use their broadband radio
>>> gear in the 10 GHz band.
>>> You may also remember that FCC rules and international radio treaty
>>> prohibit _commercial broadband_ operation on the 10.0 to 10.5 GHz
>>> band. Mimosa's license filing was declined.
>>>
>>> Last year I (Brian, AF6NA) was contacted by the CEO of Mimosa Networks
>>> with an offer to supply me and my microwave Amateur friends with
>>> broadband 10 GHz radios to try out and experiment with. We did not
>>> accept their offer. When they contacted me, I immediately contacted
>>> our ARRL Vice Director about it and our club leadership at SBMS
>>> decided to defer to the ARRL because of their expertise in
>>> communications law and Amateur spectrum defense.
>>>
>>> I just was contacted again, a day ago, by the same person, the CEO of
>>> Mimosa with a similar offer. So they are not giving up.
>>> Apparently, Mimosa Networks has a keen interest in getting Amateurs to
>>> use their commercial broadband equipment.
>>> If someone in the Amateur microwave community did so, It may create a
>>> loophole that jeopardizes the legal protection of this band.
>>> I'm not a legal expert, but I'd appreciate any _informed_ feedback [on
>>> this topic].
>>>
>>> I also wondered who else this company might be contacting? If you have
>>> been contacted by Mimosa, please contact me directly, at
>>> brianaf6na at gmail.com <mailto:brianaf6na at gmail.com>.
>>>
>>> I cannot stress enough here, please do not be persuaded to operate in
>>> the Amateur 10 GHz band of 10.0 to 10.5 GHz with any _un-modified
>>> commercial broadband_ equipment.
>>> Let's all stand together and protect the amateur 10 GHz band.until we
>>> all get reliable information from the ARRL or other sources.
>>>
>>>
>> *********************
>> FOLLOW-ON
>> *********************
>>
>> Microwavers - FYI,
>>
>> Below is a message forwarded from Brennan N4QX, the CTO of the ARRL on
>> the issue in the message from Brian (which I forwarded earlier today).
>>
>> Tom WA1MBA
>>
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> Subject: Mimosa and 10 GHz
>> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2016 00:48:31 +0000
>> From: Price, Brennan, N4QX <bprice at arrl.org>
>> To: Willams, Tom, WA1MBA <tomw at wa1mba.org>
>> CC: Frenaye, Tom (Dir, NE) <k1ki at arrl.org>, Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ
>> <dsumner at arrl.org>, Chris Imlay W3KD <W3KD at aol.com>, Gallagher, Tom,
>> NY2RF <tgallagher at arrl.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Both Tom Frenaye and Dave Sumner passed the message from the microwave
>> reflector about Mimosa's giveaway efforts on 10 GHz.
>>
>> Mimosa's efforts to advance its fatally flawed petition have hit a stone
>> wall. They have made zero effort to pay any more than lip service to
>> amateur compatibility, and there are real problems with compatibility
>> with incumbent services as well.
>>
>> While expanded mobile broadband is politically favored, 10 GHz has not
>> proved fertile ground for it, either domestically or on the
>> international stage at the next WRC. Rather than making a good faith
>> effort to rework their NPRM into something we could consider, they are
>> grasping at straws to demonstrate compatibility with incumbent services
>> with no risk to them (our licenses would be the ones on the line if
>> there's an interference situation) and real risk to our long term
>> ability to use the band.
>>
>> Your and Brian's suggestions of caution are warranted and welcome, and
>> you may pass this along with attribution to me if you wish.
>>
>> 73 de Brennan N4QX
>>
>> Brennan T. Price, N4QX
>> Chief Technology Officer
>> American Radio Relay League
>> PO Box 3470
>> Oakton VA 22124-9470
>> Tel +1 860 594-0247
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> NLRS mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> NLRS mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/nlrs
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:NLRS at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html 