The 3.4 GHz amateur band - it's future ?

[VK3AXH]

Same letter received by me as well.

[VK2ZRH]

The WIA's take on the outcome of consultation on future arrangements in the 3.5 GHz band is now on the Institute website, headed The 9 cm band is safe, for now.

Use of the 3400-3600 MHz band, including Amateur access, will remain ‘business as usual’ for the time being.

Get the skinny here: http://www.wia.org.au/newsevents/news/2 ... /index.php

[G6JYB]

Looks like its in serious trouble now though

http://www.wia.org.au/newsevents/news/2 ... /index.php

For info our own licence in the UK has just been changed where we swapped surplus 9cm spectrum but we and our defence colleagues retained 3400-3410 MHz - in our case for narrowband DX, EME and DATV

My best wishes all

Murray G6JYB

[VK4GHZ]

Just in case anyone is having difficulty visualising the areas defined in Schedule 5: 3.4 GHz Bands Designated Areas for Section 15A, this Google Map I cobbled together may assist.

Capture.PNG (6.65 KiB) Viewed 3682 times

http://vk4ghz.com/mapping/mapping-schedule5.php


It might be time to move to Mt Gambier!


Hypothetically, if any areas are prohibited from using 3.4 GHz, then 3.4 GHz should be removed from any national VHF/UHF/Microwave contesting, to prevent an unfair advantage by those not in those areas.

[VK3ALB]

I would hate to see anyone disadvantaged just because I don't have access to equipment or just because I live or chose to operate in areas where activity on certain bands is prohibited.

[VK4ADC]

I would hate to see anyone disadvantaged just because I don't have access to equipment or just because I live or chose to operate in areas where activity on certain bands is prohibited.

Lou

My approach too, sarcasm included.

[VK4EA]

Either way, it's a huge dis-incentive for me to invest any further money/effort into 9cm.

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk

[VK4ADC]

Either way, it's a huge dis-incentive for me to invest any further money/effort into 9cm.

As is the case for many others too Peter. In my case, I have already made my investment in gear for this band so it becomes a case of whether it will be useable into the distant future in some way.

Will there be another amateur segment somewhere in 3300 to 3500 MHz that won't be restrained by the geographic operating restrictions being applied ? I have to admit that I haven't recently re-read the outcomes paper so I am simply not sure.

If that is a "yes", I can re-program that synthesiser and shift the frequency to suit that and, given that the transverter design, PA and antenna feed are relatively broadband, the whole segment shift process would take less than 1/4 hour.

The problem comes if there is a resounding "no". That means pulling out the 3.4G hardware from the external 2.4/3.4 transverter housing and effectively discarding it. It won't frequency shift more than a couple of hundred MHz easily but maybe I could get it down to 2.4 and make up a second transverter for that band.

When is the deadline for amateur operations to cease in 3400-3410 in the denoted areas? I may have seen it elsewhere but can't readily recall an actual date. Maybe some heavy reading required this Easter Monday ???

[VK4CLG]

I'm pretty much in the same vote as you Doug. I already invested a large sum of money in building a 3.4Ghz setup. It's bad enough knowing that I can't use the 3.4Ghz setup on my current licence without some government department now saying I can't use it at all now but having a look at Adams maps of the designated area's I do see that I live just north of the cut off zone so maybe there is a chance I will get some use out of the gear. The only problem is everyone else who has 3.4Ghz is inside the designated zone or works portable within it so that still leaves me with no one to contact on the band unless they go portable up this way somewhere.
We should be asking the government for compensation for the money that us Ham Radio Operators are going lose just because they want to setup a wireless broadband network on the same freq.

Cheers
Robert
VK4LHD

[VK4GHZ]

Here's an interesting look back at the ACMA 3.4 GHz Auction back in 2000.
Two things are immediately apparent.

• $112 million was raised
• License period ends on 13 December 2015 no matter when sold

http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Spectru ... ccess-2000

15 years on, and this spectrum could only have become much more valuable?
Even more so for "last mile" NBN delivery.


Released only two weeks ago; http://www.acma.gov.au/Industry/Spectru ... -framework

One thing of more interest you might see reference to is "Embargo 68": http://www.acma.gov.au/~/media/Spectrum ... %20pdf.pdf

TIME FRAME: Until further notice

So, the 3400-3425 MHz uncertainty continues.
Bear in mind the current spectrum licenses expire in December 2015.

[VK4ADC]

Hypothetically, if any areas are prohibited from using 3.4 GHz, then 3.4 GHz should be removed from any national VHF/UHF/Microwave contesting, to prevent an unfair advantage by those not in those areas.

I'm pretty much in the same vote as you Doug. I already invested a large sum of money in building a 3.4Ghz setup. It's bad enough knowing that I can't use the 3.4Ghz setup on my current licence without some government department now saying I can't use it at all now but having a look at Adams maps of the designated area's I do see that I live just north of the cut off zone so maybe there is a chance I will get some use out of the gear. The only problem is everyone else who has 3.4Ghz is inside the designated zone or works portable within it so that still leaves me with no one to contact on the band unless they go portable up this way somewhere.
We should be asking the government for compensation for the money that us Ham Radio Operators are going lose just because they want to setup a wireless broadband network on the same freq.

Cheers
Robert
VK4LHD

Robert,

If the above from Adam was sustained in contest rules then being outside the designated areas won't help you as operations on this band would not be counted in the results. We can only hope that the 3400 - 3410 remains accessible to us in the longer term so the gear is not wasted.

None of us are compensated for the loss of spectrum for amateur operations. It didn't happen when we lost 576, nor with the 420-430 segment, and it won't happen with 3400.

[VK4GHZ]

Again, hypothetically, if the exclusion zones came into effect, 3.4 GHz ham activity could always be left to localised activity days outside of the exclusion zones, rather than be included in what becomes a grossly unfair national contest.

For 21 long years, we were always reminded that the VHF/UHF Field Days were to be a level playing field.
Having some participants earn points on a band, whilst others are excluded from participation, is hardly "level".

Anyway, worry about that when Embargo 68 changes.

[VK3HZ]

Has anybody actually looked at the 3.4GHz band allocation?
We have 300MHz from 3.3 to 3.6GHz. From the WIA Band Plans, it looks like this:

The red areas are where there are currently geographic restrictions on operation. The weak signal area is the black bit at 3400 MHz, well away from any current restrictions.

NBN are making a grab for two segments: 3400-3425 MHz, and 3492.5-3542.5 MHz. This will effectively mean that there will be geographic restrictions over the whole block from 3400-3575MHz.
However, 3300-3400MHz and 3575-3600MHz are still available for our use.

Now, I'm like the next amateur and hate to see us lose any allocation. The odd thing about this NBN grab is that in Europe, the spectrum from 3400-3410MHz seems to be almost exclusive amateur, with satellite allocations and the lot: http://www.iaru-r1.org/index.php/spectr ... centimeter

So, either we push to retain 3400-3410MHz based on that precedent and tell NBN to push off elsewhere (moving from 3400-3425 MHz up to 3575-3600MHz comes to mind - although it'd be like pushing a B-Triple, I think) or we give up and move down into the high 3300 MHz area - far enough to minimise any NBN crud, but close enough to allow existing equipment to be used with minimal mods.

Personally, I'd like to see us push harder to retain 3400-3410MHz. Roger?

Regards,
Dave
VK3HZ

[VK3HZ]

For 21 long years, we were always reminded that the VHF/UHF Field Days were to be a level playing field.
Having some participants earn points on a band, whilst others are excluded from participation, is hardly "level".

I've got terrible noise on 2m from the LED lighting next door, which makes it very hard to work into VK5, so can we exclude that band too.
And I don't have an antenna for 6m, so that band should be crossed off.
And while we're at it, 10GHz is a bit dodgy to the south making VK7 a real struggle, so I think that band should be cut out too.

And I'll just add a smiley to indicate how ridiculous these comments are.

[VK4GHZ]

I've got terrible noise on 2m from the LED lighting next door, which makes it very hard to work into VK5, so can we exclude that band too.
And I don't have an antenna for 6m, so that band should be crossed off.
And while we're at it, 10GHz is a bit dodgy to the south making VK7 a real struggle, so I think that band should be cut out too.

And I'll just add a smiley to indicate how ridiculous these comments are.

Dave, we generally expect better from you, but if you want to take it too childish extremes, so be it.

Being a national contest, equal opportunity should exist.
Should major population centres be denied access to 3.4 GHz, it isn't fair. Period, irrespective of the spin you try and put on it.

I also note in the last decade, you have only submitted VHF/UHF FD logs on two occasions.
Summer 2005 and Summer 2008, as home station.

Have you considered putting more effort into VHF/UHF Field Days, and operate portable?
As a bonus, your LED noise problem would also go away.

[VK2ZRH]

Dave VK3HZ, and others - the "quarantining" of 3400-3425 MHz (and another block) in the proposed LCD remake relates to future NBN requirements, hence, I draw your attention to the WIA submission on the ACMA's “Consultation on draft Direction to use 3.5 GHz band spectrum for the National Broadband Network spectrum gap”, pages 2 to 4, in particular:

Noting that:

(a) the NBN Co Fixed Wireless and Satellite Review (Final Report) of May 2014 identified that at least 80,000 premises in the metro fringe and hard to service areas of the mainland major cities will require an NBN fixed wireless service, and

(b) the ACMA has identified that area-wide apparatus licences within the 3.5 GHz frequency band (3400 – 3600 MHz) may be suitable for the purposes of NBN Co,

the WIA seeks preservation of Amateur Service use of 3400-3410 MHz Australia-wide, consistent with international allocations and CEPT footnote EU17 in Region 1, and suggests that a 25 MHz block for the NBN could be found elsewhere in the 3400–3600 MHz band.

In addition, the WIA seeks preservation of Amateur Service use of 3492.5–3542.5 MHz (and the repositioned 25 MHz NBN block) outside those geographic areas where NBN fixed wireless services are deployed, such that any likely interference to the NBN service is obviated and subject to the existing provisions of secondary services.

This is consistent with the principles of existing geographic prohibitions, as identified in Appendix A and the
Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (Amateur Service) Determination No. 1 of 1997 – 2013 update.

You will note that the areas where the ACMA proposes to licence NBN use of 3400-3410 MHz is likely to be limited in geographic extent, to service ". . .at least 80,000 premises in the metro fringe and hard to service areas of the mainland major cities . . ." - pretty much around many home QTH territories.

I think the issue needs a considered, perhaps comparatively sophisticated, response.

Posted in the interests of clarifying the debate.

[VK3BQ]

who owns what today

some 3GPP detail (if you search) on 3500mhz and what the mobile carriers want

http://www.3gpp.org/dynareport/36-series.htm

[VK5GR]

The interesting thing to me here is that NBN wants to use Fixed TDD LTE. LTE Channels currently top out with an individual maximum bandwidth of 20MHz. Therefore pushing for 3400-3410 might get dismissed because it means they cant get a 20MHz channel into 3410-3425.

If the amateur service were also to offer as a solution the suggestion that 3400-3405 be left clear of LTE services, it might yield a slightly more positive response (but only as a secondary position based on first trying to maintain alignment with CEPT Region 1). This is simply because a TDD LTE channel could be centered on 3415, use all available space down to 3405 - and unless they break DoD's resistence to allowing them below 3400 it would leave 3400-3405 clear (potentially). Additional strength can be brought to this argument if you could show international coordinated communications on the band. Here i think we will struggle as across Asia the 9cm band is rather a rare commodity for the amateur service.

As for NBN wanting to only serve 80000 homes in the metro fringe, that will still equate to a lot of sites in at least every capital city in Australia. My back of an envelope order of magnitude estimates are that If they are looking for minimum 12Mbit/s downlink to each customer, run a contention ratio of say 30/1, and consider that a single TDD LTE channel from memory tops out somewhere around 90Mbit/s capacity they can only put 240 homes per sector. At 3 sectors and ~800m2 land per house (including street/public land) this works backwards to a cell range of ~500m or an intersite spacing of ~1km for about 300-350 sites. That is a LOT of sites. If the contention is too high (thanks to things like NetFlix) then they will quickly expand those sites and be looking for more like 60MHz rather than 20MHz of spectrum. Working around whats available in the band, you might find little change out of the entire 3400-3600 band after considering the other allocations already in place.

[VK4AQF]

3.4-4.2 GHz is international C-Band satellite DOWN link for anybody that knows about satellite TV. Its NOT owned by the ACMA Australia or any other entity, ITU international band. Try telling that to Intelsat. Im not sure what the ACMA has in mind to 'sell' it off to! Aliens? It is shared with Amateur on non interference basis. To add taking any band above 2 GHz of us is absurd as the probability of interference to other services is extremely low in probability, even more so in this digital age which is far more robust than analog to interferers. How many C-Band TV receivers have the 9cm operations upset lately? So HOW are they going to accommodate LTE in the C-Band satellite spectrum allocated for DVB-S downlink internationally?

[VK4AQF]

Dont panic heres the rub form the ITU...
http://www.itu.int/itunews/manager/disp ... age=C-band
"The World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07) will address matters related to the identification of radio-frequency spectrum for IMT-2000 and systems beyond. (International Mobile Telecommunications-2000, or IMT-2000, is ITU’s global standard for third generation — 3G — wireless communications). In the opinion of many satellite operators, the frequency bands 3 400–4 200 MHz and 4 500–4 800 MHz (known as C-band) are not suitable for this purpose.

The frequency ranges 3 400–4 200 MHz and 4 500–4 800 MHz are in the list of candidate bands that emerged from studies conducted within the ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU–R) in connection with this conference agenda item. Most existing C-band satellites use the first of these ranges for their downlink transmissions. The band 4 500–4 800 MHz is associated with the downlinks of the fixed-satellite service (FSS) Plan, and is intended to preserve orbit and spectrum resources for future use on an equitable basis by all countries."

Also
"C-band is not suitable for IMT systems
It should be noted that C-band frequencies are not the most appropriate for IMT systems. In areas where population density is high, cell diameters will be based on usage requirements. In areas where population density is low, however, cell diameters depend on how far signals can reach. The characteristics of C-band will significantly increase costs as compared to deployment in lower frequency bands, because C-band signals, in addition to not being able to penetrate buildings, lose energy over distance much more than lower frequency bands. This would mean that IMT deployment to rural areas using C-band would be much more expensive."

The whole idea is an engineering nightmare and WONT work. this is the opinion of EXPERTS and satellite operators. Who are the ACMA?

I think this sums up the future of any LTE in the 3.4GHz band. My emphasis in bold..

The operators of C Band satellite are NOT amused by this proposal. Who has the most clout?