AT&T Adds High-Quality Spectrum to Support Customers’ Growing Demand for Mobile Video and High-Speed Internet | AT&T
"AT&T will work with the FCC, NTIA, DOD, and other federal agencies to also support uplink capacity as soon as possible."
If 2 meters and 70cm were to suddenly disappear
- Thread starter rapidcharger
- Start date
- Status
AT&T Adds High-Quality Spectrum to Support Customers’ Growing Demand for Mobile Video and High-Speed Internet | AT&T
"AT&T will work with the FCC, NTIA, DOD, and other federal agencies to also support uplink capacity as soon as possible."
rapidcharger
Member
Well I don't know about you but I've heard such great things about 700mhz building penetration I definitely want my cell phone to operate there. I heard it's newer technology and works better than the old 400mhz spectrum. I think the wireless cartels should buy up the rest of 700 and leave 400 alone. Just my 2 cents.
Sent using my beta tester iPhone 7 using Tapatalk.
Ssh though. just dont tell anyone.
Sent using my beta tester iPhone 7 using Tapatalk.
Ssh though. just dont tell anyone.
Token
Member
I would have to disagree with that.
The biggest ham spectrum loss of all, at one time ham radio had EVERY frequency above 1500 kHz (200 meters). It was thought frequencies above that were useless, so give them to the hams. During this time and on these "useless" frequencies people were "experimenting" as high as 1.25 meters. And in 1927 we lost almost all of that spectrum. After that it is hard to say we gained more than we lost.
But lets look only at the time after WW II.
WW II caused some shakeups, mostly because of technology developed during the war and the forced changes of those techs.
We lost all bands for the duration of WW II, and did not get most of them back until the war had been over almost a year. 2.5 meters became the Aviation VHF band. 160 meters became the realm of LORAN. 160 meters did not fully come back to hams for decades.
We lost 5 meters and 2.5 meters, but gained 6 and 2 meters for those.
In 1947 we lost the top 300 kHz of 10 meters and the top 50 kHz of 20 meters. We gained 15 meters and 11 meters.
In 1958 we lost 11 meters.
Then in the 80's we got the WARC bands (30, 17, 12 meters) and 33 cm.
In 1988 we lost 2 MHz of 1.25 meters.
Losses, since WW II (based on the last pre-war 1941 allocations) we have lost:
85 kHz at the bottom end of 160 meters (originally 1715 - 2000 kHz)
The top 50 kHz of 20 meters (originally 14000 - 14400 kHz)G
Gained and then lost 270 kHz on 11 meters (26960 - 27230 kHz)
300 kHz on 10 meters (29700 - 30000 kHz)
4 MHz on 5 meters (56 - 60 MHz)
4 MHz on 2.5 meters (112 - 116 MHz)
At that time 1.25 meters was 6 MHz wide, 224 - 230 MHz, that has all changed, so call it 6 MHz loss.
And hams had access to all frequencies 300 MHz and up as an "Experimental" region with 400 - 401 MHz as an exclusive allocation.
So not counting the 300 MHz and up region, since the end of WW II we have lost 14.705 MHz of spectrum below 300 MHz (or 14435 kHz if you null the gain and loss of 11 meters), and huge chunks above 300 MHz.
Gains, in the same time period as these losses, we have gained:
14 kHz with the 5 channelized 2.8 kHz frequencies on 60 meters
50 kHz on 30 meters (10100 - 10150 kHz)
100 kHz in 17 meters (18068 - 18168 kHz)
450 kHz in 15 meters (21000 - 21450 kHz)
100 kHz in 12 meters (24890 - 24990 kHz)
4 MHz in 6 meters (50.0 - 54.0 MHz)
4 MHz in 2 meters (144.0 - 148.0 MHz)
4 MHz net in 1.25 meters (219 - 220 MHz and 222 - 225 MHz)
Or 12.714 MHz of gained spectrum below 300 MHz. Above 300 MHz we gained exclusive allocations, but lost far more spectrum in shared allocation.
So, more spectrum lost than gained, since WW II.
T!
Last edited:
ecps92
Member
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
The problem is there isn't enough spectrum on 700MHz, even if LMR/part 90 was turned over to the cartels. This is why they want 600MHz too:
FCC delays start of 600 MHz incentive auction to early 2016 - FierceWireless
Of course, the NAB is putting up a good fight, and the public WILL lose much OTA TV coverage (the cartels of course benefit from this too, as this means more subscriber to their wonderful cable TV/IPTV service) but we know who will win in the end. Those with the deepest pockets.
400MHz is a natural, desirable progressive move for them. Much better rural coverage with fewer sites. GSM has been deployed in ETSI areas since the late 1990s.
GSM 400 Spectrum
I am not sure about 70cm but I know in my area a LOT of control and linking is done on that band. So we have plenty of 2m repeaters linked together using 70cm frequencies.
I doubt you will see FRS/GMRS sold off because there are millions of radios out there in the public's hands that operate on those frequencies. There would be too much interference from people who were unaware of the reallocation, or who didn't care. And a lot of angry people who spent money on walkie talkies that are suddenly made illegal with the stroke of a pen.
In other words, amateurs are a small enough group to rob without a big backlash. The average Joe who bought FRS radios at Walmart for the family camping trip or to go hunting, etc. makes up a large enough slice of the population to count. And the average Joe probably will continue to use his FRS radios unaware that any change has been made. That makes that slice of spectrum a harder target than the ham portion, I think.
They would have to spend massive amounts of money to inform the public that their walkie talkies were no longer legal to operate. I just don't see it happening.
I hope the ham 70 cm band remains untouched. Cross band repeaters, satellites, etc. would all lose capability if it happens.
I doubt you will see FRS/GMRS sold off because there are millions of radios out there in the public's hands that operate on those frequencies. There would be too much interference from people who were unaware of the reallocation, or who didn't care. And a lot of angry people who spent money on walkie talkies that are suddenly made illegal with the stroke of a pen.
In other words, amateurs are a small enough group to rob without a big backlash. The average Joe who bought FRS radios at Walmart for the family camping trip or to go hunting, etc. makes up a large enough slice of the population to count. And the average Joe probably will continue to use his FRS radios unaware that any change has been made. That makes that slice of spectrum a harder target than the ham portion, I think.
They would have to spend massive amounts of money to inform the public that their walkie talkies were no longer legal to operate. I just don't see it happening.
I hope the ham 70 cm band remains untouched. Cross band repeaters, satellites, etc. would all lose capability if it happens.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Uhm, not really. This is the same public that stands in line for the latest cellphone and pay more and more each month to be on some cartel's network and can't get enough 4G/5G/whatever for their constant Facebook updates. They won't miss the walkie-talkies at all, they already have apps that do that and don't have static, creepy pervy old men making cat calls at kids, or hams bootegging on FRS with their Astro Spectras running 100 watts bothering them.
This public will be conned into supporting any move by Congress and Radio Spectrum Sales and Leasing LLC dba FCC to give them "more bars in more places". They look at radio hobbyists as luddites clinging to the past the same way some collectors cling to cassette tapes and LPs. A niche market that doesn't justify squatting on billions of dollars of valuable radio spectrum that equates to trillions in profits. You do the math.
Yep. We sure are.
They would just stop selling them and not grant any new approvals.
Since LTE is brodband spread spectrum (5MHz wide channels), low power narrowband carriers on 462/467 won't bother most LTE base stations, and most consumers will be abandoning those for their Smartphone apps powered by new "Ultrahigh Band long distance LTE" and won't care.
Average Joe would much rather have a cellphone that works in the woods in his cabin where he can privately walkie-talkie chirp his hunting partner and call the wife while posting pics of his latest kill on Facebook than have FRS. Ask anybody.
Not really. Most would not even know. Aside, the PCIA would spend a few million to rally the dumb general public to support the cartels' complete takeover, encouraging people to "email your congress critters and tell them you want more radio room for more LTE today", and they would do so. They've already screwed the public out of much of the OTA TV band with more to come in 2016, what makes you think they won't have success with taking a band hardly anyone uses?
Do you see anyone other than the NAB complaining about the dwindling availability of FREE OTA TV? Where are all the consumer groups like Consumers Union on these issues? As quiet as FRS/GMRS is in my town of 6 million people.
I would hate to see it go to. I have a few thousands of bucks and countless hours of a labor of love into my UHF repeater. I love the band and being able to play with all the plethora of cheap, quality LMR gear.
But I am not living under a rock. I am in a minority. I also know what time it is and who really owns this country:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dY4WlxO6i0
Last edited:
902
Member
He left one thing out. It's not just a pencil, it's a pencil and a student loan (first-hand experience speaking).
Some musings about a few statements -
Narrowbanding was supposed to "free up" additional spectrum, however in my view, it failed because the FCC only did a very minor portion of it and called it a day. For VHF, what really needed to be done is create PAIRED spectrum and center on 6.25 kHz channel centers, not 7.5. Using 7.5 was the path of least resistance and, as we know, only narrow NXDN conforms (somewhat wastefully) within the channelspace. 6.25 kHz could be aggregated to 12.5 and to 25 kHz as needed. That possibly could have created a harmonious situation for 4/TDMA, analog 11K2, and so forth, where geographic separation was minimally required. Likewise, a paired environment would have addressed major issues of new systems killing existing system inputs. And, "right-sizing" systems could have reduced astronomical footprints for beaver gulches and put radio systems that covered valleys into the valleys off the 10,000 ft. mountain peak. Yes, not that good for scanning if you can't hear the system 4 states away, but it would have been very good for the end users. In my view, the only thing narrowbanding (and REbanding... two different things, but equal boondoggles) did was kill off usable equipment and create a manufactured crisis that benefited a small ecosystem.
Use vs. being vocal and engaged - I think the latter is more important in terms of reaction. As George Carlin wisely puts it, we, however, fail to be engaged and tend to go through our lives immersed in a lack of situational awareness. If you're reading this thread, you probably are concerned - at least at some level. No one really cares how much something is used. It's how vocal you are and how (RESPECTFULLY) you "bring it home" to the decision makers with contact and (more importantly, the language they speak) contributions. It doesn't matter how much money they can raise, if they can't bamboozle someone into voting for them, or if they get "primaried" (political opponents put someone up for the seat in a primary and get them elected, if possible), they are out (and will more than likely come back as lobbyists).
What's the big deal? A net gain in spectrum count is not the issue. Sure, we got the WARC bands (thanks not to any domestic proceeding aside from the League's participation in the 70s, but to the ITU and others in the world pushing for it), and we got a handful of 5 MHz channelized frequencies (the channelized USB concept - just like most other non-amateur HF users use - has worked pretty effectively there), and we got the spectrum garbage can (902-928 ISM for which there is one poorly selling radio commercially made and a ton of used LMR hacks), but watch out for the higher bands first. The more appealing spectrum are those which can be supported by smaller antennas for MIMO configurations to push more bandwidth, and can be incorporated into stripline antennas inside the devices, as opposed to external ones. You might say, "big deal! I'm not using any of that (Why not? Weak signal work is really fun!) they can have it. THEN when that's gobbled up, 420-450 is next. There are already restrictions north of Line A with several U.S. markets actually having public safety licensees ON the 420 band near Canada. At some point that MAY be a "replacement" for the T-Band frequencies glommed by Congress in a half-thought-out scheme for auctioning (if they didn't omit commercial users and TV stations). Let's also not forget the precedent by a "robotics" company to use the 70 cm band for their product.
I don't think 2 meters is as as vulnerable, as it is encapsulated by "other interests," but we may see a resurgence of BPL on lower frequencies at some point, maybe with some tweaks.
This threat is real. The spectrumscape will change over your lifetime. How and to what extent is entirely up to you.
nd5y
Member
One thing nobody has mentioned is the international amateur satellite allocations on 2m, 70cm and some of the higher microwave amateur bands may offer some protection. I can see 2m and 70 cm in in the US being reduced to 144-146 and 430-440 but probably not more than that.
K5MPH
Member
As long as the ham test keep being so easy to pass to get to the HF bands it will just get worse because hams move on to the HF bands and abanden the VHF/UHF and when the powers to be catch wind of all this its just a matter of time before the rich come along and take it away...........
K5MPH
Member
Hams need to stop useing their 100 watt HF radios to talk across town and use the VHF/UHF bands for that ........
+1000
AC2OY
Member
Whatever we loose would sadden me. I love this hobby and have made some good friends on the radio so far. My operating so far only consists of mainly 70cm but I oneday soon want to get a HF rig and try to work the world.
And I finally got around to reading what you've been squawking about. I couldn't have squawked it better, myself. Squawk-on, sir! <-- my version of "preach it"
mmiller7
Member
Considering every disaster-preparedness thing I've ever seen involves 2M that seems unlikely. There aren't any other local bands that are out there to use like 2M is. I'd be shocked if ARRL and every club that exists didn't gather it's members to fight. I'd certainly join my club in any efforts if our repeater (which is listed as RACES support for the county) was in danger of losing it's place.
This will also kill SkyWarn - last time I wanted to report a sudden storm, we didn't get any official warning from weather radios or news but they later decided a tornado had passed over us and the shopping center under a mile away. As roofing was being ripped off the apartment across from us and trees were coming down I tried to contact the NWS with the info on my spotter card...we lost phone (cell towers overloaded), internet/landline (cable went out, they provide both), and the power was flickering. As it subsided, I finally got thru on a repeater when it was safe to go outside with my HT (all I had at the time) to report along with several other people who had similar problems. Another time, following the earthquake in Mineral, VA a couple years ago there were similar issues with the phones being overloaded and useless, there was no way to relay information. But there were nets set up on the regional repeater and people relaying messages from the local repeater to the regional repeater for those who couldn't get in.
70cm is just getting cluttered, though there are still a moderate number of repeaters on 70cm and it's popular for cross band repeat when event stations need to have a "remote high power" link to their HT. Considering how many things use 70cm for various gadgets (thermometers, car remotes, etc) I don't see it going away but I could see a scenario where it's reduced down to just 433-443 where "gadgets" frequent and a bit surrounding.
And I don't see GMRS or MURS going away any time soon, both are used heavily by businesses, stores, and construction sites. Since FRS shares channels with GMRS and so many of those units are floating about with people who have no idea that rules even exist, it seems it would be rather poor judgment to re-purpose those frequencies because the interference would be impossible to track down. But even if this all went away, there's always CB for short-range.
AC9KH
Member
Why should this "bug" you? 2 meters is primarily used by Technician operators and ARES/RACES groups for their weekly check-in's. Once folks get their General and beyond, they move to HF and repeaters aren't needed (or even desirable) on HF - and VHF/UHF holds little interest for most.
You'll find me talking to somebody that is 150-250 miles away on 160 meters during the day, often times running 1,000 - 1,200 watts. Many of us use the lower HF and upper MF spectrum for local daytime communications at high power levels when those frequencies don't propagate. When night time falls and we can bounce a signal off the F2 layer then we cut the drive back to whatever is needed and we run 75 meter nets that cover the entire US and Canada on 100 watts. And if we want only local communications at night, then we switch to 10 meters, again at high power levels, because those frequencies don't propagate at night. So we can get decent groundwave propagation with relatively small vertically polarized antennas at 100 - 1,500 watts that no VHF repeater can match.
Myself, I could basically care less about VHF and UHF amateur frequencies. I got a 2m rig in the shack but it hasn't been run for so long it has cobwebs in it. If I want to get on the air with the locals I fire up a sideband rig, warm up the afterburner, select a frequency that won't propagate beyond groundwave or direct wave distance, switch to the antenna best suited for the path, and bypass the VHF repeater mess. On HF we got way more frequencies, propagation paths, and power levels to work with. And that's why you find few of us on VHF.
mmiller7
Member
I wouldn't say VHF/UHF is just for Tech's, around here there's so much [2M radio] traffic during [the daily commute] rush hour you can't keep track of who's who in the roundtable with everyone coming and going. It's not unusual for each of the 3 VHF repeaters to have 3-6 people going around on them most of which are general or extra class. Everyone is polite and helpful to each other and chats around for a bit on their way home, throwing out tips about the traffic hazards they encounter as they go. We also use it heavily on field-day to coordinate bringing supplies to the club's site when people go to the store, or inquire if people who are coming may have <insert adapter here> to help each other set up, or replace lost/damaged/incorrect adapters.
When it's time for the ARES/RACES nets everyone sort of sits around "standing by" when the control operator comes on, QSY to another machine to continue their chat if they don't plan to check in. The machines here don't sit idle much except night (sleeping) and weekends that people aren't on the road (I presume people on HF).
To our east, there's even a massive linked system of 6 repeaters on VHF/UHF that frequently has 10-20 people going at a time during rush hour and 2-3 people on it most of the day!
AC9KH
Member
I didn't say "just for". I said "primarily used by".
Sure, lots of folks have mobile units on 2m and use them on the repeaters.
But there's enough of us that DON'T do it that it's a pretty common theme - 2m FM simplex doesn't make the path, don't want to use repeaters, 2m sideband with a beam doesn't allow a 3 or 4 way conversation in most cases, so we use HF with omni-directional antennas and crank up the power. It's not unusual to find 3, 4 or 5 way conversations going local on HF or MF. Especially on 160 meters during the day.
So why this would "bug" somebody is beyond my understanding. Hams been doing it for years, long before VHF repeaters started popping up all over the place. And it is still far superior to using repeaters.
The communications act of 1934 did not establish amateur privileges and bands to get on the air and gab and work contests. The amateur service is still Federally licensed in the US as a distributed communications network that can be brought online in an emergency. And the thing is, all those repeaters, unless they got a decent backup power source, are off the air in a widespread power outage or emergency. And few of them have that. And worse yet, some of them are linked thru the internet. On HF we don't need any of that "infrastructure". Many of us who run and participate in the sideband National Traffic Nets have full, extended off-grid power capability in the event of a real emergency. And we'll still be on the air passing traffic while local pandimonium rules on VHF with operators on the air with HT's and mobiles wondering what happened to the repeaters.
So my own view of VHF and UHF is that is has limited usefulness. And while it's not going to, it could completely disappear and basically only the Technician class operators and groups who run the ARES/RACES nets on it would be inconvenienced. Communications would still be going on HF, completely independent of all the "infrastructure" that VHF/UHF requires.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
You're missing the point. ARRL has nothing in it's pockets compared to the PCIA and the general public who are clamoring for more wireless internet bandwidth. While I concur that 2 meters is of less interest to the cartels, they have been playing with VHF for rural area broadband deployments with promising results on the vacated VHF OTA TV channels, so there is commercial interest in this band:
White spaces (radio) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contrary to popular belief, SkyWarn is a program of the National Weather Service, and exists independent of amateur radio. While many storm spotters use amateur radio, it could easily be replaced (and is) with more modern, publicly available means such as cellular, FirstNet, broadband, etc. As I stated before, the cartels have beefed up their "disaster response" or so they will tell their friends at the FCC.
As a side note, the so-called "weather nets" around here are a joke. too many babble mouths blowing hot air saying "it's raining" tying up a linked repeater network that, by the time you can actually get a word in edgewise, the storm passed hours ago.
The NWS office here has eliminated the need for having a ham operator in the storm center, as they found the constant chatter distracting, and instead take reports via email and EMWIN from local storm spotters including the hams. From my understanding, this is happening in other parts of the country as well.
We are already secondary users of the band. Government (NTIA) is primary. When the government sells the band off to the cartels, we are done.
As was stated before, the interference potential to LTE or other broadband systems that would be operating on the spectrum would be minimal. Spread spectrum can "work around" it just fine. The other way around, well, this would just cause users of these devices to just give up, which is exactly what the cartels would want: those users would be more likely to pony up for more of their services.
As far as the reliance on them, this is dwindling. Everyone has a cellphone these days. They'd love to NOT have to carry two devices on the job. Once cellphones start offering an off network low power PTT option such as using ad-hoc WiFi or Bluetooth the need for such devices will be as old hat as Radio Shack stores.
- Status
Similar threads
