Spectrum pressure at 2.3 GHz

Discussion and announcements about ATV related spectrum
g6jyb
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu May 09, 2013 12:57 pm

Moves at 2.4GHz

Postby g6jyb » Tue Jun 25, 2013 10:01 pm

Those with an interest in Wi-Fi or 2.3/2.4/3.4GHz TV Repeater Outputs may well want to read this one...

http://rsgb.org/main/blog/news/rsgb-not ... ubmission/

regards

Murray G6JYB

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Spectrum pressure at 2.3 GHz

Postby g8gtz » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:14 pm

Just a quick update that we hope to be posting the BATC (and RSGB) opinions in the next couple of days.

These will be laid out in the same format as the Ofcom questions so that members can use them for guidance when completing the online response form.

73

Noel - G8GTZ

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Spectrum pressure at 2.3 GHz

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:35 am

2 points to note from a posting by Murray:

The Ofcom deadline is confirmed as July-22 as per the Ofcom amateur consultation webpage and the front cover of the pdf document. The reason that Jul-15 is in Annex-1.1 is an editorial oversight, after its release was delayed by a week

In addition please ensure you are looking at a reasonably recent copy of that pdf as it was up-issued a few days after its first release with some other editorial tweaks to the new proposed licences for both Intermediate and Full (and there is a note on the Ofcom webpage to that affect)

Ofcom webpage is:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consul ... m-release/

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Proposed responses

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:57 am

Unfortunately, due to time pressures on individuals, it has not YET been possible to publish any formal guidance from RSGB / BATC.

However, to try and focus the discussion and make sure we share our thoughts so we can all respond by next Monday (July 22nd), I am going to post my own proposed responses in a series of answers to each question. These will follow shortly.

It is vital that everyone responds to the consultation to show we do care and are passionate about our hobby. If we do not, Ofcom may just walk all over us next time, just like the authorities did in Sweden and Australia. Because of this, I will be sending out an email to all BATC members reminding them to respond.

73

Noel

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Question 1

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:00 am

Q1. Do you agree that it is likely that the benefits to UK consumers and citizens will be greater from the MoD’s release of spectrum in the 2.3 GHz and 3.4 GHz release bands than from retaining the current amateur use?

This is my individual proposed response - it is not a BATC reponse:

Given the pressure on spectrum above 400 MHz, and the impact of on the economy if this is not made available for new services, it is difficult to argue for the retention of the release bands as secondary amateur allocations.

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Question 2 & 3 reponse

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:02 am

Q2. Are there current uses in the release bands other than those detailed in RSGB’s band plan and discussed in Section 3 of this consultation?
Q3. Are there further consequences of removing the release bands from amateur licences that have not been considered in our analysis?

This is my individual proposed response - it is not a BATC reponse:

A2 - Not that I am aware of.

A3 - No

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Question 4 reponse

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:07 am

Q4. There is an option (although not preferred) to remove access to the adjacent bands, as well as to the release bands. What are the consequences of removing access to the adjacent bands from amateur licences?

This is my individual proposed response - it is not a BATC reponse:

The most significant consequence of the complete removal of access to the 2.3 – 3.4GHz spectrum would be the loss of a part of the UHF/microwave spectrum which provides relatively straightforward access to radio amateurs who wish, for interest, or self-education, to explore the characteristics of this area of the spectrum.

It would also lead to significant personal financial loss, possibly individually in the region of £2k, to the several hundred individuals who have invested in equipment for these allocations. It is very probable that much of the equipment used could not be readily adapted for use at other than very similar frequencies.

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Question 5 & 6 response

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:10 am

Q5. Are there current uses in the adjacent bands other than those detailed in the RSGB’s band plan and discussed in Section 3?
Q6. Are there additional mitigation measures which would provide demonstrable proof that amateurs would not cause interference into LTE in the release bands following the release?

This is my individual proposed response - it is not a BATC reponse:

Q 5 - Not that I am aware of.

Q6
Amateurs do already have the equipment and expertise to design, make and test suitable filters, however the BATC and UK microwave group are actively considering the extension of the existing informal “elmer” network, which provides help and support to others in the hobby, to identify people who are experts in interference mitigation. This network would be made available to provide practical help and support to any amateurs who feel they may be liable to cause undue interference to other users and could be available to assist with any reported incidents of interference.

We are also planning a series of articles in our in-house publications, CQ-TV and Scatterpoint, covering the practical aspects of filtering and reduction of problems and the construction filters. Equipment and filter testing will also become a major focus of the hands on workshops organised at the roundtables organised regularly by both organisations.

Pending the outcome of the review, it is highly likely that the BATC / ETCC will review and change the ATV repeater specifications and the BATC is committed to providing support to those repeater groups who may be impacted by the changes.

A more open approach by the primary users of the shared bands as to sub bands of frequencies that should be particularly avoided, would aid proper band planning by the RSGB and special interest groups, such as UKuG and BATC, to ensure the amateur services can co-exist with other services both in the released and shared bands.

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Question 7 response

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:11 am

Q7. Do you agree with the proposed process for varying licences following cases of reported interference and our proposal to vary licences should dealing with the number of reported cases become too onerous?

This is my individual proposed response - it is not a BATC reponse:

Before any blanket changes are made to amateur use of the shared bands is made, it is hoped that Ofcom will enter in to discussions with the RSGB, BATC and UK microwave group to try and resolve the situation.

g8gtz
Posts: 762
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 6:26 pm

Question 8 response

Postby g8gtz » Wed Jul 17, 2013 8:13 am

Q8. Do you agree with our preferred option?

This is my individual proposed response - it is not a BATC reponse:

Q8 –
The preferred option will cause severe disruption to Amateur Television operation in both 2.3 and 3.4 GHz bands.

Whilst it is accepted that ATV repeater outputs will transition to digital operation, it is absolutely vital that we continue to have access to at least 1 analogue ATV channel at 2.3 GHz for simplex and repeater inputs.

Without this, analogue ATV operation will no longer be possible on any band between 1.2 GHz and 5.6 GHz and this will have a major impact on the hobby and a major financial impact on the individuals who have equipment for ATV operation on 2.3 and 3.4 GHz.

As long as ATV can continue to be accommodated within the 2.3 GHz band, Ofcom's preferred option is, if not entirely desirable from the amateur point of view, acceptable.


Return to “Spectrum matters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest