Could the FCC "sunset" all American amateur radio?

[PrivatelyJeff]

P25 or DMR is not allowed on 1.25 meters? Since when? As to trunking, huh and why? Anyways, someone making a P25 or DMR radio for 220 would be nice, but that's not going to happen either. Limited market and thus limited number of users/sales.

I’m unsure what you mean by “P25 or DMR is not allowed on 1.25 meters?”. There’s nothing saying it can’t be used.

As for trunking, just as a fun experiment plus it would make it easier to build repeater networks with large talkgroup availability.

Also, Anytone D578 radios do DMR on 220.

 

[AK9R]

Ask a ham about narrow band and the majority of them will look at you like you are a nut.

From a frequency coordination standpoint, the issue is inertia. In order to take any advantage of narrow-banding in the amateur radio repeater bands, EVERYONE would have to switch. The frequency coordinators have no authority to mandate this. Neither does the ARRL. The FCC could mandate it, but they are pretty much "hands off". It would take a group decision by the repeater trustees. Among the 300-plus amateur radio repeater trustees just in the state of Indiana, achieving a majority in favor of narrow-banding is something I doubt I see in my lifetime.

Setting aside the amount of spectrum for archaic modes like CW/AM on 2 meters and 70 centimeters doesn't rate high on my list, either.

Oh, the tragic waste of CW-only bands on VHF/UHF!

According to FCC rules, we are talking about 100 kHz on 6m and 100 kHz on 2m. The rest of the spectrum set aside for "archaic modes" is by gentlemen's agreement. The FCC will not blink an eye if you choose to operate, let's say, P25 on 144.250 MHz because, as far as the FCC is concerned, digital voice is "phone", and "phone" is legal on 144.1 to 148.0 MHz.

Too many paper repeaters taking up space.

This is an on-going struggle.

Frequency coordinator: "Is your repeater still on the air? We've heard reports that it isn't."
Trustee: "Yeah, it's still on the air. It's just very low profile and I've got it 'locked down' so only my friends can use it."
Frequency coordinator: "OK, as long as it's still on the air, could you update your coordination records. We require that you do that every two years."
Trustee: "Yeah, well, I can't figure out your online system and, well, nothing has changed since my last update."

These conversations are part of my life as a frequency coordinator.

Heaven forbid that the old GE repeater from 1969 gets replaced….

Luckily, a lot of them got replaced by cheap Yaesu DR-1X repeaters that, even though they are capable of dual mode operation, are locked down in analog mode.

I think 220 would be an excellent place to allow P25/DMR amateur radio trunking (just have to figure out the IDing issues).

The IDing issues would be no different on the 222 MHz band than they are on the 2m or 70cm bands.

 

[AK9R]

Also, Anytone D578 radios do DMR on 220.

And, the Kenwood TH-D74 can do D-STAR on the 222 MHz band (and I know people who are doing it).

 

[Firekite]

I’m unsure what you mean by “P25 or DMR is not allowed on 1.25 meters?”. There’s nothing saying it can’t be used.

You said you thought it would be good to allow it, insinuating that it’s not currently allowed.

 

[mmckenna]

From a frequency coordination standpoint, the issue is inertia. In order to take any advantage of narrow-banding in the amateur radio repeater bands, EVERYONE would have to switch. The frequency coordinators have no authority to mandate this. Neither does the ARRL. The FCC could mandate it, but they are pretty much "hands off". It would take a group decision by the repeater trustees. Among the 300-plus amateur radio repeater trustees just in the state of Indiana, achieving a majority in favor of narrow-banding is something I doubt I see in my lifetime.

Yeah, I understand the coordination issues. Still, would be nice to see amateur radio as a whole start to cooperate more than they do. Between the paper repeaters, locked down systems, and pure BS on the part of some, making a step to drag amateur radio out of the 1980's would be a good thing.

Oh, the tragic waste of CW-only bands on VHF/UHF!

According to FCC rules, we are talking about 100 kHz on 6m and 100 kHz on 2m. The rest of the spectrum set aside for "archaic modes" is by gentlemen's agreement. The FCC will not blink an eye if you choose to operate, let's say, P25 on 144.250 MHz because, as far as the FCC is concerned, digital voice is "phone", and "phone" is legal on 144.1 to 148.0 MHz.

Yeah, poor example on my part. 100KHz….
One thing I've noticed locally is that the band plans haven't kept up with reality. IP nodes seem to be the red headed bastard step child. They seem to pop up randomly on what have traditionally been simplex frequencies with no coordination. Not a big deal, but some of them are set up a little odd. Some don't seem to monitor before transmitting. Some seem to be permanently linked without any local users. Some seem to be set up a high sites and impact a wide area. As I've travelled, it's not uncommon to be on a simplex channel talking to others, and suddenly wander into the coverage of one of these systems and get the owner all cranky.
But sure, change frequencies and hope you don't find another one.

Frequency coordinator: "Is your repeater still on the air? We've heard reports that it isn't."
Trustee: "Yeah, it's still on the air. It's just very low profile and I've got it 'locked down' so only my friends can use it."
Frequency coordinator: "OK, as long as it's still on the air, could you update your coordination records. We require that you do that every two years."
Trustee: "Yeah, well, I can't figure out your online system and, well, nothing has changed since my last update."

Yeah, pretty much the southern half of California in a nutshell. Pick the wrong 70cm simplex channel and I've had some random ham start yelling for being on "his" channel.

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

You said you thought it would be good to allow it, insinuating that it’s not currently allowed.

Yeah, trunking, like with control channels and all that like they use in the commercial/public safety space.

 

[Firekite]

Yeah, trunking, like with control channels and all that like they use in the commercial/public safety space.

You’re saying that’s illegal to do on 222?

 

[vagrant]

Yeah, trunking, like with control channels and all that like they use in the commercial/public safety space.

I also misunderstood your post about P25/DMR being used for trunking and thus my initial reply. As to trunking, the cost of that infrastructure and the need of it is lacking in amateur radio, especially with 220. Still, I do agree with experimenting though. Well, you‘re in my area. If you set something up and find the equipment I would help you test.

 

[902]

Folks, all this talk of FCC mandates and frequency coordinator screw-ups is interesting, but does it really pertain to the topic. Would any real or perceived need for additional VHF spectrum for public safety or business uses persuade the FCC to violate ITU frequency allocations that currently set aside part of that spectrum for amateur radio?

Potentially.

Remember, the FCC does nothing to act on its own behalf. Unless it is action on behalf of an ex-parte or petition for rulemaking, the initiator would need to be Congress, and, it's a fact, that in the first iteration of The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, there was a proposal to bargain away 430 - 440 MHz as a pairing with a higher UHF 10 MHz block creating a 10x10 LTE block for commercial auction. That was defeated by the ARRL rallying many vocal amateurs to write and call their Representatives. Yet, all interests had to be reminded that the frequency band was primarily military radiolocation (RADAR), had satellite services deployed internationally, and the ability to unilaterally assign to commercial interests may not be possible without a Plenipot session or breaking international treaties. More than that, the FCC would not be doing any of that. It was be the State Department assisted by Commerce, and possibly the FCC would have a consulting role. The less amateurs feel compelled to vocally (but respectfully) assert their relevance to their legislators (whether that's on paper or real-life is immaterial), the better the chances of anything going away. Still, those callers were only vexing and lower-hanging fruit was available.

If amateur radio had to stand on face value without the DoD as primary user, it would be as good as gone by now, and not necessarily to backstop any other spectrum shortfalls, but more for its ability to offset the national debt through auction. The other thing that saves amateur radio is that 2 meter, 222, and 440 wavelengths are undesirable for MIMO antenna arrays and beamforming technologies. It would be difficult to reuse and pack to the maximal efficiencies that a bidder would want. We will probably see, however, authorization for FHMA that will up the aggregate noisefloor on 420-450. The precedent was set by allowing amateur radio frequencies for control of law enforcement robotics.

As an interesting aside, what ultimately happened in the act that was signed into law was the demand for T-Band spectrum in exchange for the 700 MHz Upper D-block's assignment to public safety broadband.

 

[Duckford]

Is it just me, or do I get a funny chain of logic from some of the posters here that "Because there are a lot of people wasting tons of bandwith without consequence, all the responsible repeater owners should all go digital and reorganize the bands to make up for the inefficiencies and waste of the problematic ones" or something to that effect?

Like "There are too many dogs in this neighborhood, and your neighbor with dead dogs and a couple of sick dogs in his kennel refuses to get rid of his, so we can talk about dog control in regards of your two healthy family pets?"

I never like the attitude that responsible people who act to fix problems should be the ones to do the work and sacrifice to make up for those who are truly causing the problems. Forcing narrowband digital on everyone should be the last option, reforming the way repeaters are handled int he first place, and freeing idle bandwith, seems like a logical first.

And the whole hard push to change everything VHF/UHF to digital and away from analog just doesn't sit right. Some are a lot less radical about the idea, and others seem almost obsessed with it.

 

[PrivatelyJeff]

You’re saying that’s illegal to do on 222?

Trunking is illegal on all amateur radio due to having to ID on each frequency you use and with trunking, that can be many in a short conversation.

 

[AK9R]

...there was a proposal to bargain away 430 - 440 MHz as a pairing with a higher UHF 10 MHz block creating a 10x10 LTE block for commercial auction...Yet, all interests had to be reminded that the frequency band was primarily military radiolocation (RADAR), had satellite services deployed internationally, and the ability to unilaterally assign to commercial interests may not be possible without a Plenipot session or breaking international treaties.

Military frequency allocations are managed by the NTIA and are outside FCC control. As I recall, it was the NTIA who spoke up in this case and reminded the FCC "who's boss" in NTIA-managed spectrum.

Trunking is illegal on all amateur radio due to having to ID on each frequency you use and with trunking, that can be many in a short conversation.

I think we've had this conversation before. As long as the trunking protocol identifies on each frequency it uses, in accordance with §97.119, there's nothing in the rules prohibiting trunking on amateur radio.

 

[N4GIX]

I wish 1.25m equipment were more widely available. Like anything else, it’s usually a question of critical mass.

See: BCM-220 1.25m Mobile Radio w/Programming Kit — BridgeCom Systems

I've had this one for just over a year and am completely satisfied with its performance.

 

[tweiss3]

I think we've had this conversation before. As long as the trunking protocol identifies on each frequency it uses, in accordance with §97.119, there's nothing in the rules prohibiting trunking on amateur radio.

I would love to see a trunking radio system on amateur radio; however, after 4 hours of nothing on the wide area NC PRN, and the under utilization of most repeaters, it would be a waste of resources and repeater pairs.

 

[902]

Military frequency allocations are managed by the NTIA and are outside FCC control. As I recall, it was the NTIA who spoke up in this case and reminded the FCC "who's boss" in NTIA-managed spectrum.

Yes, but it went a little deeper than that. This was NOT the FCC's idea. As I said earlier, the FCC commissioners doesn't wake up proposing rulemaking absent lobbying or direction of Congress. This was the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, specifically the chairman who, interestingly, is a ham himself.

Add to that, the FCC reports to the Legislative branch, while Commerce (the parent organization of the NTIA) is an Executive branch office. There were many wheels that came off the rails for this one. The bottom line was that they drafted this "giveback" demand in the 11th hour and there were many omissions and impracticalities. It was just sloppy.

The FCC later found themselves with a mandate, but also on the basis of flawed legislation, knowing there was literally no other spectrum short of VHF low band that could accommodate displaced T-Band licensees. Considering the characteristics of T-Band vs. VHF low band, there was no way that any migration could take place. In the end, it was 8 years of poor lawmaking, the FCC doing things "because" they were told to, but with no way for the displaced entities to be made whole - especially business licensees who were maybe included (no one will ever know...) but had no legislative enablement to be made whole (it ain't gonna happen on its own).

Got to love drama. As radioheads, this one was ours.

 

[INDY72]

" Remember, the FCC does nothing to act on its own behalf. Unless it is action on behalf of an ex-parte or petition for rulemaking, the initiator would need to be Congress "... Congress ain't had diddly to do with the FM addition to CB. That was pure money talking from 2 international CB manufacturers plain and simple. One of them was President. Congress ain't doing diddly with the FCC unless a powerbroker with deep pockets steps to congress first. Lest keep it honest and real about how this all works now.

 

[902]

Congress ain't had diddly to do with the FM addition to CB. That was pure money talking from 2 international CB manufacturers plain and simple. One of them was President. Congress ain't doing diddly with the FCC unless a powerbroker with deep pockets steps to congress first. Lest keep it honest and real about how this all works now.

Right. That would be the part where I said, "...unless it is action on behalf of an ex-parte or petition for rulemaking..."

The initiator for FM CB was a petition for rulemaking followed by lobbying from the industry.

Congress looks at these things as "commerce," the FCC was chartered partly to support commerce, so there is a mandate to be responsive to forward movement. The Commission has vastly more lawyers and economists than it does engineers, so it only has to make sense to someone, not everyone. If something makes money, it doesn't go back to the FCC.

There's another successful model: when things start to wane, create an artificial crisis that requires a technology refresh. It'll sell new equipment... until it doesn't. So, introducing chaos into CB (as if more is possible) will drive individuals to get the nifty new stuff and the manufacturers will sell it to them, and everyone will be happy until sales curves trend downward.

 

[Firekite]

Add to that, the FCC reports to the Legislative branch

Tell that to Ajit Pai. If allowing FM on 11m makes people here angry, then perhaps we’ve gotten a little off track.

 

[AK9R]

Tell that to Ajit Pai.

You mean the former FCC Chairman? He's been out of the FCC picture since January.

 

[WPXS472]

This may be a little off topic. Sorry. Remember a few years back when the FCC authorized the operation of ground based transmitters very near to L1 GPS frequencies? There were going to be thousands of high powered stations scattered across the country. The folks who make GPS equipment, and some major user groups got together and managed to get the FCC to reverse itself when they presented studies that showed that this new service would basically make GPS useless for most users. I remember once hearing the then current head of the FCC address a group of journalists about all the good things the FCC was doing. Someone asked if it was a good idea to sell spectrum, something publicly owned by the citizens of the US. He responded that the auctions were only for leases of spectrum. I thought to my self "What would the folks who paid hundreds of millions of dollars for that spectrum say when told they didn't really own it, and would have to give it back in a few years?" The FCC is heavily influenced by monied interests, not us. Never forget that.