Clarity question on the FCC reallocation NPRM

4 posts / 0 new

Tue, 02/18/2020 - 13:07

km5l

Is the entire 3.380 to 3.495 GHz allocation proposed to be taken away from us?

Also same question for the 5.665 to 5.920 GHz, both shared and exclusive?

Thanks and 73,
Patrick KM5L

Tue, 02/18/2020 - 13:20

K6AH

Question answered in Yuma Presentation

You'll find a section on "Spectrum at Risk" in my Yuma presentation which should answer your questions.
https://www.arednmesh.org/sites/default/files/Yuma%20Hamfest%20Presentat...

Andre, K6AH

Wed, 02/19/2020 - 00:09

(Reply to #2) #3

km5l

Thanks

Hey thanks Andre, long time no squawk! So am I reading it right that if the NPRM is successful it would leave us with channels 180-184 (and part of 179)? Would they stay exclusive ham? Also looks like channels 168 and 169, part of 167 as exclusive? And on 3.4 we'd lose it all?

Thanks,
Patrick KM5L

Wed, 02/19/2020 - 10:37

(Reply to #3) #4

K6AH

Still leaves us some room to...

It would leave us to compete with the Intelligent Transportation Systems on 179-184 where I suspect we would have reasonably clear channels due to the low power and nature of vehicle-to-vehicle communications. We will also have reasonably clear channels on the extreme low end of the band, say 133 to 145, although we would need to carefully coordinate with other ham interests.

Yes, we would lose 3 GHz entirely if we couldn't work out with the FCC a way to move down the band (but unfortunately out of the range of our current equipment).

Andre

Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network

Menu SF

You are here

Clarity question on the FCC reallocation NPRM

Amateur Radio Emergency Data Network

Search form

Menu SF

You are here

Clarity question on the FCC reallocation NPRM