2025-03-14 — Breaking News From FCC - DELETE, GNU Radio Conference 2025 in Everett, Washington, USA, The Threat to the US 902-928 MHz (33 cm) Band from NextNav, M17Web, Two New Books on SDR
Dale - With respect... in reading Docket 25-133... does it look to you like this is business as normal with the FCC we used to know and kind of understand, and we CAN "proceed with caution"? I'm going to operate under the assumption that Docket 25-133 means what it says and proceed with (what I consider) an appropriate response. Someone in US Amateur Radio has to treat this seriously.
What I meant was an overhaul of the FCC part 97. I agree the rules are antiquated and need updating as long as there is a lot of thought put into the changes what ever they are. I worry to much deregulation with result in another CB band.
got that right Dale. Just look at how an Xtra class license is so easy to obtain today! Not worth much more than a novice! Bring back 20 wpm and a trip to NYC like the old days! hi W2IUC
Glenn - Docket 25-133 was posted 2025-03-12. I'm going to wait 7 days and if nothing has coalesced by then, I'll assume there won't be and proceed to work on an independent response around Zero Retries. And yes - a Zoom meeting.
As someone outside the USA, I've been frequently frustrated by the arcane US regulations - unlike anything the rest of the world has. Here in Australia, there has been steady deregulation of what happens inside the amateur bands - what mode you use doesn't matter, you just need to stick within the bandwidth limits for the band in question (and some HF bands have provision for wider modes with a spectral power density limit). For 2m and above, the bandwidth limit is the entire band itself, so spread spectrum is definitely a possibility.
Similarly, there are no baud rate limits or mandated band segments, the only guidance there is the band plan information from the Wireless Institute of Australia (our equivalent of the ARRL), which is a (generally well respected) set of agreements on how the bands are used at a given time (band plans are regularly updated here to meed the evolving needs of amateurs).
I hope the US amateur community can make the most of any opportunities this development presents, while protecting their interests.
Tony - In writing Zero Retries, I constantly bump into my US-centric ignorance of Amateur Radio outside the US... and thus comments like yours is EXTREMELY valuable to Zero Retries. I'm in violent agreement that Amateur Radio conventions and localized agreements are a far better solution than national proscriptive regulations.
Thanks for your response Steve. The biggest frustration is when US limits dictate the specifications of projects for the GLOBAL ham community. The bleats of "You can't do that" (but yes we can, our regulations allow that, same for most of the world). And because of our unique geographical situation there are some things we do that the rest of the world doesn't, like SSB on 10 MHz, which is not only legal, but written into the current band plan, so it's not even "inappropriate" to do so.
Steve you are absolutely correct we need to be proactive here. This is a golden opportunity to modernize regulations.
We should submit comments that advocate for deletions only. I think this is doable, beneficial to our hobby, and it allows for saying at the end that we eliminate X number of burdensome regulations (this phrase is important) while adding none. I think some of the same "spectrum workforce" verbiage will work too.
Justin - Thanks for your thoughts. One of the most time-consuming tasks in my personal response to this is to link the Spectrum Workforce issues into this, because after all, this is ultimately about "America First" and we really need to RE develop US-based telecommunications development and manufacturing industry.
This is exactly the right approach. Frankly the changes we want match up very well with the administration's deregulation agenda.
Another thing I'm considering is renewing a request for an 8m band in the US. The federal government is the primary user there and it's not heavily used anymore. Could be pitched as reducing government waste and might offset some other likely band losses in the near future.
Boy oh boy this is an opening you can fly a 747 through! Discussion point: how much do we rely on the ARRL? Should we present a unified front or try for a massive quantity response?
John - I really do hope the ARRL shows up soon on this issue with at least 1, preferably 2 weeks to provide some guidance on a filing. But experience with the past few FCC requests for comment is that the ARRL files its comments at the last moment. Thus I think it's on us that know about this, and care about this, to file comments.
One position to pitch is to re-imagine the amateur radio service as a logical follow-on to enabling innovation that we've seen with unlicensed devices in the ISM bands, but requiring licensed operators/experimenters. You could strip down the different license classes to a bare minimum and use this as a means of enabling novel experimentation of new and novel techniques and technologies. Embrace the people building cubesats and having them operate in "our" spectrum.
Of course, 99% hams will clutch their pearls and clench their sphincters in a xenophobic reflex that's quite well developed, so I dunno how that's going to work.
To put forth a devil's advocate position (which I'm sure other parties will) - why have an amateur radio service, with all that valuable spectrum locked away? Look at all the innovation done with Part 15 radios and ISM spectrum. Why not repurpose all the hoarded spectrum that these radio elites refuse to give up and drive more of the same economic growth and GDP contributions that WiFi products have brought in 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM spectrum? Everybody can use more WIFi! And there's endless demand for more mobile phone/wireless device spectrum for the cellular operators to use for mobile and fixed wireless services that EVERYONE can use. Bring all these benefits to ALL citizens! Rah, rah!
Louis - Gosh I love that expression "clutch their pearls". Yep. There is tremendous innovation and personal experimentation going on in the unlicensed bands like 902-928 MHz such as Meshtastic and Wi-Fi HaLow. Yes, in filing comments on this one, we're going to have to make some RELEVANT arguments, not just "our repeater provides coverage for the Independence Day parade".
This is not an opportunity for amateur radio. It's an existential threat to amateur radio. The inclination of the Trump administration is likely to be to sign us out of existence and give all of our spectrum to commercial interests.
Shirley - Oh Yes, this IS an existential threat to Amateur Radio. Which is why it's vital for Amateur Radio to show up and offer relevant comments about why we should be allowed to keep our spectrum, while simultaneously asking for some relief from the arcane regulations that are hindering US Amateur Radio from being more innovative.
Jason - Your comment was too far out of scope. Please don't do that any more.
I think we need to proceed with caution. To much deregulation can lead to the ham bands turning into a cb band
Dale - With respect... in reading Docket 25-133... does it look to you like this is business as normal with the FCC we used to know and kind of understand, and we CAN "proceed with caution"? I'm going to operate under the assumption that Docket 25-133 means what it says and proceed with (what I consider) an appropriate response. Someone in US Amateur Radio has to treat this seriously.
What I meant was an overhaul of the FCC part 97. I agree the rules are antiquated and need updating as long as there is a lot of thought put into the changes what ever they are. I worry to much deregulation with result in another CB band.
got that right Dale. Just look at how an Xtra class license is so easy to obtain today! Not worth much more than a novice! Bring back 20 wpm and a trip to NYC like the old days! hi W2IUC
Should we organize a Zoom Meeting, soon?
Glenn - Docket 25-133 was posted 2025-03-12. I'm going to wait 7 days and if nothing has coalesced by then, I'll assume there won't be and proceed to work on an independent response around Zero Retries. And yes - a Zoom meeting.
As someone outside the USA, I've been frequently frustrated by the arcane US regulations - unlike anything the rest of the world has. Here in Australia, there has been steady deregulation of what happens inside the amateur bands - what mode you use doesn't matter, you just need to stick within the bandwidth limits for the band in question (and some HF bands have provision for wider modes with a spectral power density limit). For 2m and above, the bandwidth limit is the entire band itself, so spread spectrum is definitely a possibility.
Similarly, there are no baud rate limits or mandated band segments, the only guidance there is the band plan information from the Wireless Institute of Australia (our equivalent of the ARRL), which is a (generally well respected) set of agreements on how the bands are used at a given time (band plans are regularly updated here to meed the evolving needs of amateurs).
I hope the US amateur community can make the most of any opportunities this development presents, while protecting their interests.
Tony - In writing Zero Retries, I constantly bump into my US-centric ignorance of Amateur Radio outside the US... and thus comments like yours is EXTREMELY valuable to Zero Retries. I'm in violent agreement that Amateur Radio conventions and localized agreements are a far better solution than national proscriptive regulations.
Thanks for your response Steve. The biggest frustration is when US limits dictate the specifications of projects for the GLOBAL ham community. The bleats of "You can't do that" (but yes we can, our regulations allow that, same for most of the world). And because of our unique geographical situation there are some things we do that the rest of the world doesn't, like SSB on 10 MHz, which is not only legal, but written into the current band plan, so it's not even "inappropriate" to do so.
Steve you are absolutely correct we need to be proactive here. This is a golden opportunity to modernize regulations.
We should submit comments that advocate for deletions only. I think this is doable, beneficial to our hobby, and it allows for saying at the end that we eliminate X number of burdensome regulations (this phrase is important) while adding none. I think some of the same "spectrum workforce" verbiage will work too.
Justin - Thanks for your thoughts. One of the most time-consuming tasks in my personal response to this is to link the Spectrum Workforce issues into this, because after all, this is ultimately about "America First" and we really need to RE develop US-based telecommunications development and manufacturing industry.
This is exactly the right approach. Frankly the changes we want match up very well with the administration's deregulation agenda.
Another thing I'm considering is renewing a request for an 8m band in the US. The federal government is the primary user there and it's not heavily used anymore. Could be pitched as reducing government waste and might offset some other likely band losses in the near future.
Boy oh boy this is an opening you can fly a 747 through! Discussion point: how much do we rely on the ARRL? Should we present a unified front or try for a massive quantity response?
John - I really do hope the ARRL shows up soon on this issue with at least 1, preferably 2 weeks to provide some guidance on a filing. But experience with the past few FCC requests for comment is that the ARRL files its comments at the last moment. Thus I think it's on us that know about this, and care about this, to file comments.
One position to pitch is to re-imagine the amateur radio service as a logical follow-on to enabling innovation that we've seen with unlicensed devices in the ISM bands, but requiring licensed operators/experimenters. You could strip down the different license classes to a bare minimum and use this as a means of enabling novel experimentation of new and novel techniques and technologies. Embrace the people building cubesats and having them operate in "our" spectrum.
Of course, 99% hams will clutch their pearls and clench their sphincters in a xenophobic reflex that's quite well developed, so I dunno how that's going to work.
To put forth a devil's advocate position (which I'm sure other parties will) - why have an amateur radio service, with all that valuable spectrum locked away? Look at all the innovation done with Part 15 radios and ISM spectrum. Why not repurpose all the hoarded spectrum that these radio elites refuse to give up and drive more of the same economic growth and GDP contributions that WiFi products have brought in 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM spectrum? Everybody can use more WIFi! And there's endless demand for more mobile phone/wireless device spectrum for the cellular operators to use for mobile and fixed wireless services that EVERYONE can use. Bring all these benefits to ALL citizens! Rah, rah!
How would we refute these kinds of arguments?
Louis - Gosh I love that expression "clutch their pearls". Yep. There is tremendous innovation and personal experimentation going on in the unlicensed bands like 902-928 MHz such as Meshtastic and Wi-Fi HaLow. Yes, in filing comments on this one, we're going to have to make some RELEVANT arguments, not just "our repeater provides coverage for the Independence Day parade".
This is not an opportunity for amateur radio. It's an existential threat to amateur radio. The inclination of the Trump administration is likely to be to sign us out of existence and give all of our spectrum to commercial interests.
Shirley - Oh Yes, this IS an existential threat to Amateur Radio. Which is why it's vital for Amateur Radio to show up and offer relevant comments about why we should be allowed to keep our spectrum, while simultaneously asking for some relief from the arcane regulations that are hindering US Amateur Radio from being more innovative.