[NLRS] Fw: [Mw] The ARRL Seeks Changes in FCC Proposal to Delete 3.4 GHz Amateur Band

[WA2VOI, Donn]

May be of interest to some who might not be on any of the reflectors already targeted.

There's still hope....

73 Donn
WA2VOI/0


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Thompson via Microwave" <microwave at mailmanlists.us>
To: "Microwave" <microwave at mailmanlists.us>; <digitalatv at groups.io>; "yahoogroups" 
<digitalatv at yahoogroups.com>; <10ghz-up at groups.io>
Cc: "Mark Korroch via MiVUS" <mivus at mivus.org>; "yahoogroups" <nimrods at yahoogroups.com>; 
"Mid-America Microwave Society" <mams at mailman.qth.net>; "Midwest Microwave" 
<midwest-microwave at groups.io>; <main at slams.groups.io>; "yahoogroups" 
<micro-nuts at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 4:54 AM
Subject: [Mw] The ARRL Seeks Changes in FCC Proposal to Delete 3.4 GHz Amateur Band


>
> The ARRL Seeks Changes in FCC Proposal to Delete 3.4 GHz Amateur Band
>
>
> ARRL Seeks Changes in FCC Proposal to Delete 3.4 GHz Amateur Band
> 09/26/2020
> ARRL met via telephone with FCC staff members this week to emphasize its opposition to 
> the FCC Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in Docket 19-348 to delete amateur radio 
> from the 3.3 – 3.5 GHz band. The FCC will take final action in the proceeding when it 
> meets on September 30.
>
> In comments filed earlier this year, ARRL urged that the secondary status for amateur 
> radio in the band be continued. In a series of meetings with Commissioner legal advisors 
> and staff members, ARRL explained how continued secondary use by radio amateurs will not 
> impair or devalue use of this spectrum by future primary licensees, including those 
> intending to provide 5G or other services. ARRL also stressed the various public-benefit 
> uses of the spectrum by amateurs, including ongoing use of television and mesh networks 
> on the west coast of the US as part of efforts to contain wildfires.
>
> With regard to interference potential, ARRL stated that amateur radio operators using 
> these bands are technically proficient and have a long history of sharing with primary 
> users in this and other bands without causing interference.
>
> FCC staff expressed concern that because amateur operations in the band are less clearly 
> defined than those of other services also operating on a non-interference in the band, 
> they would be difficult to locate should interference occur. ARRL Washington Counsel 
> David Siddall, K3ZJ, noted that Section 97.303(g), an existing amateur rule, could be 
> amended or used to craft a notification requirement, if the FCC concluded that relying 
> on other methods would be insufficient. The FCC participants indicated that such a 
> requirement, in place of deleting the secondary allocation, would be given serious 
> consideration. (Section 97.303(g) contains specific frequency-sharing requirements for 
> the 2200- and 630-meter amateur bands.)
>
> Siddall also pointed out that the Amateur Television Network (ATN) filed an email with 
> the Commission that included a letter from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency 
> Services (Cal OES) describing amateur radio’s contributions, specifically calling out 
> the need for 3.4 GHz access and explaining why other bands are not sufficient.
>
> ARRL also argued that, in any event, continued operation in the band should be permitted 
> until and unless an actual potential for interference exists in a specific geographic 
> area. ARRL said the FCC should not intentionally leave spectrum capacity unused during a 
> build-out period that the Commission’s own proposal indicates will last for at least 12 
> years in some areas.
>
> The record in the proceeding is now closed. Please be reminded that there can be no 
> calls, emails, or filings to the FCC with regard to the issues under consideration until 
> a final FCC Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is released. 
> Release is currently expected to be within a few days after the Commission’s September 
> 30 meeting. At that time, ARRL will evaluate the impact on amateur radio of the 
> Commission’s decisions and consider what further action, if any, may be merited.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Microwave mailing list
>
>