I suspect the world would be better if that percentage were even greater.
On responding to threats to our amateur spectrum…
I was driving around a bit yesterday (I needed a new hand nibbling tool to punch some holes in a project box, and wanted to get out of the house anyway, so a jaunt over to Harbor Freight seemed like a good way to kill two birds with one stone) so I did what I normally do: I downloaded a couple of amateur radio podcasts, and fired them up on my car stereo.
One of the podcasts I listen to is the Amateur Radio Newsline, and they were running a story entitled RESTRUCTURING: WIRELESS BROADBAND WANTS MORE SPECTRUM FROM ANYONE. The basic gist (go ahead and listen to the podcast if you like more information) is that Rick Boucher (D) is asking that the federal government undertake a complete inventory of radio spectrum for the purpose of determining reallocations to satisfy the growing need for additional wireless data services. In addressing the possible threats to the amateur service:
Its when you get to 200 MHz and above that the hunt will likely be focused and right there lies the relatively silent 222 to 225 MHz allocation. Above that is the 70 centimeter ham radio allocation which is secondary to the Federal Government. If the government were to decide to move completely out of 70 centimeters it could put a lot of weak signal operators and repeaters in a fight to keep the spectrum on which they now reside.
But likely the real losses would be up in the microwave range where hams hold a lot of spectrum that to date is used mainly by experimenters. And a lot of it sits adjacent to bands used by other services that might eventually be pushed by government decree into moving elsewhere or simply told to disband to make way for more wireless broadband services.
For amateur radio as an FCC licensed communications service this means being vigilant about attempts at reallocations that might include any bands that we use. It also means making certain that our ham radio political leaders are aware that every hertz from DC to light will be under scrutiny by both the wireless broadband industry and the government in the coming months and years.
So, here was my thought: that amateur radio use at UHF+ is actually on very thin ice. The reality of amateur radio at UHF and above is that it’s an incredibly fringe activity. I just used K5EHX’s repeater search engine to find all repeaters which provide coverage to my QTH. There are 85, but only two are not in the 2m or 70cm band. One is on 6m, the other is on 1285 Mhz. While this isn’t the whole story with respect to microwave operation, I think it is indicative of the kind of numbers were are talking about. Probably only one percent of ham radio takes place on the bands above 70cm, and that is probably being rather generous.
When we say that our “ham radio political leaders” should remain vigilant against possible spectrum reallocation, I think that we are shifting the responsibility (and in the future, likely the blame) to them, when the responsibility really lies with us. We as radio amateurs are simply not doing enough to justify our use of UHF+ spectrum. When we rely on political action committees to justify our use of this valuable public resource, we should be working hard to provide them with every possible justification that they can use. It isn’t Congress who is placing these frequencies in peril: it is our own inactivity which does so. If we lose 1.2GHz, or 220Mhz, or any of our other allocations, it will be because we frankly aren’t using them enough. If I thought that these frequencies could be effectively used to give Internet broadband to millions of underserved Americans, I’d have to say “take those frequencies, we will miss them, but we had our chance with them”.
What do you all think?
Comments
Pingback from innismir.net — Threats to Amateur Spectrum, winnable battle or game over?
Time 1/5/2010 at 3:48 pm
[…] K6HX recently asked what people are thinking regarding the “looming spectrum crisis” and the various […]
Comment from David W6DTW
Time 1/6/2010 at 1:16 am
Mark,
I agree with the reality of the threat to our allocations. I wrote about this recently in my blog (http://tinyurl.com/yc87lmj).
The CTIA has asked the FCC for 500 MHz. Genachowsky has said that the “spectrum crisis” is coming. I believe that the band we will lose is the 200 MHz swath at 3 GHz. Perhaps not a major loss; in all honesty how many hams do you know who use that band? I know *one* guy here in the Silicon Valley that worked up a municipal Emcomm data network using 3 GHz.
Given a $1-$2/MHz-Population value for spectrum the 3 GHz band will bring in a LOT of money in a spectrum auction, presuming that the government can avoid the type of idiocy that they engaged in when they tried and failed to auction off the 700 MHz D-block. The 700 MHz spectrum that did get auctioned brought in a record $19.6B. Our 3 GHz band could bring in 3x – 5x that if auctioned on a nationwide footprint basis.
The unfortunate reality is that hams are not doing enough innovative work in 3 GHz to justify holding on to $60B (or more) of bandwidth. It’s not the loss of 3 GHz we should be concerned about, however. It’s the slippery slope that awaits us once we start down the road of conceding spectrum.
…dtw
Comment from Jeff, KE9V
Time 1/8/2010 at 4:41 pm
Mark…
I agree with your premise that we are sorely under utilizing that spectrum but historically it has been fairly worthless. That’s why radio amateurs were given such an enormous chunk of it — at the time no one could see any possible use for it.
Of course times change and now industry is beginning to covet it and it is very likely we will lose much of it.
There seems little point in making a mad rush now to try and make use of this spectrum. There aren’t anywhere near enough of us to fill it all up. Our allocations above 70cm are enormous compared to all the HF spectrum we have combined.
Besides which I’ve never been convinced that the FCC monitors the ham bands to determine the level of activity. Even if all the old timers seem intent on saving CW by the “use it or lose it” syndrome, I really don’t believe that’s how it works…
73 de Jeff
Comment from K3NG
Time 1/3/2010 at 12:57 pm
Hi Mark and Happy New Year. Even if we would start using these bands more, I’m not sure that would be enough to keep them from being reallocated, even if we could get 50% of our active amateurs on them. If we calculate how many bits/hertz are currently being used in our spectrum versus what would be used if reallocated, and perhaps even take it a step further to model the geographical aspects and frequency reuse, it’s hard to objectively argue against mobile wireless use of these bands. Unfortunately we’re not going to be able to depend on the classic defense based on emcomm use or experimentation; the potential public benefit is just too great and mobile wireless interests have deep pockets and superb representation.