Ale přečtěte si vyjádření G4SWX:

From: "John Regnault" <g4swx>
To: <iaru_c5@ml.oevsv.at>
Subject: Re: [Iaru_c5] Iaru_c5 Digest, Vol 126, Issue 4


Matts writes:

> The real challenge for our microwave bands is mobile data over mobile networks, mobile network back-bones and WiFi.

Although my personal interests in the hobby are EME and narrowband VHF DX we must increasingly 'sell' and encourage regular wider bandwidth amateur activity. I am really impressed by ham-net in Germany but such activity seems to have not take-off in the UK. Sadly my 13cm data link produces more MHz/hour than all of the rest of the narrowband amateur activity in JO02............

> At least in Sweden mobile data services are considered to be to “the benefit of society” by the regulator and decision makers. I think it’s fair to say that good relations between amateur organisations and regulators to a large degree depend on individuals. As radio amateur age profile over time reduces number of amateurs within the regulator organisations, history and knowledge of amateur radio is declining and it’s a challenging task to keep this knowledge up to a healthy level by key persons.

That is all true. However I dedicate most of my time to dealing with the key, non-radio amateurs within the UK telecommunications regulator; Ofcom. Radio amateurs within the regulatory bodies have somewhat narrow views based upon their own experiences. As somebody experienced with other aspects of dealing with the telecommunications regulator, wireline security, I guess I also take a somewhat more pushy attitude with the regulator than most amateurs.

> This situation plays against us, and it becomes very difficult to fight the argument of “to the benefit of society” when a new, or secured, allocation for mobile data is on the table.

I disagree! The debate which won us, in the UK, an allocation of 146-147MHz, although temporary, was made on the basis of 'not more of the same' and 'filling-up' the spectrum. My bid was on the basis of experimentation with wider bandwidth technologies than are not usually used at VHF and could not be easily accommodated alongside our current 144MHz usage. This caused a lot of disquiet in amateur circles as I made it very clear that FM and traditional narrow-band modes were not welcome in 146-147MHz! i.e. entirely the opposite of the recent IRTS low-VHF band plans.

After I presented the results of reduced bandwidth(500KHz) digital amateur television on 146MHz to the UK regulator; Ofcom I was asked to do a similar presentation to Ofcom's business radio user group.
The result of this second presentation was the offer of 70.5-71.5MHz, again on a temporary basis!
In private I can tell you of a significant number of wider bandwidth experiments that I suggested might happen that have failed to materialise............
My most recent presentation and video involved HD-RB-DATV and again I was asked to present to the regulator's business radio user group (where there are a lot of amateurs). Again the feedback was fantastic, particularly from the head of spectrum policy. When I asked him why, the reply was enlightening. It seems that at UHF many outside broadcast systems employ 2-way links consuming 10MHz each way. It seems that full broadcast standard is not required for the feedback but HD is. Amateurs had just proved that HD was possible in 500KHz although at a slower bit rate. Whilst I have had a lot of luck and the support of many UK amateurs (I am but a 'front-man') I believe that such a non-traditional approach to the regulator can pay off.

> Again, I fully agree with “use or loose” but we will not turn around the use on those bands to match a discussion with mobile data (e.g. How many more need to be active to back up that argument? What is a realistic figure?).

Amateur radio will not win the spectrum argument in the 21st century that way. Traditional narrow-band usage will not generate significant influence the regulators of today as there are not enough of us to do much about it. However when I ran a demonstration of remote station EME from the regulator's HQ I was deeply quizzed on amateur digital protocols with a lot of FEC and how they might be applicable to telemetry. Aspects of national training perhaps, development of novel ideas and experiments yes and a lot more that as an old man (65) I have not thought of!

> Depending on individuals, there may be attempts to find national solutions for amateur radio allocations, but on the CEPT level I think it will be very difficult.

In CEPT we need technically talented people to pull apart some of the badly founded technical policy ideas that I often see. i.e. the bits/Hz of LTE that somehow does not include the guard channels plus many other examples that seem to reinforce the 'fog' that we face..

> A discussion on how we can expand information on our activity outside our own magazines could give some ideas on publicity and one piece to the puzzle.

Being a VHF manager is about selling the amateur radio story at VHF/UHF to the spectrum regulator. I grab anything that I think might interest this audience and push it hard. Some things do not develop to fruition but with luck there will be some aspects of the hobby that can be made appealing to non-radio amateurs within the regulatory bodies. Every country is different but I have had discussions in at least 2 other Eu countries where I know that the radio regulator is looking for something different from amateur radio.

73
John G4SWX