[Ground-station] FCC comments filed for 3 GHz, and an open question for an NPRM at 5 GHz

[Michelle Thompson]

What assumptions can we make about the noise floor rising in 5GHz from 5G
etc.?

Anecdotally, the 5GHz WiFi noise floor can be -85 to -80 dBm near dense
urban/office settings.

There's a study about 5GHz and satellite co-existence here:
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/78383/airborne_measurements_over_northampton.pdf

New antennas for 5GHz and new protocols for avoiding interference (by
creating less of it in the first place) are areas of active study and
commercial implementation.

I'd like to file a comment on the amateur radio question in the above NPRM.
I need some help here with answering their assertion of "We also believe
that our proposal to apply the existing U-NII-3 power rules to the
5.850-5.895 GHz band will
protect co-channel secondary Amateur Service operations from harmful
interference. We seek comment on this proposed approach."



-Michelle W5NYV




On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 1:30 PM Michelle Thompson <
mountain.michelle at gmail.com> wrote:

> Open Research Institute filed our 3GHz band comment with the FCC and it's
> live at: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1211716424260
>
> There's another NPRM at 5GHz.
>
> https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-360940A1.pdf
>
> This does not appear to threaten the allocation we intend to use at
> 5655-5665 MHz.
>
> However, this NPRM does address the Amateur Service.
>
> "57. For the same reasons we tentatively conclude that C-V2X devices will
> not cause harmful interference to FSS uplink operations in the 5.9 GHz
> band, we also tentatively conclude that it is not necessary to adopt any
> restrictions on U-NII-4 devices to account for the existing non-federal
> users of the band. The expected unlicensed device use cases which primarily
> involve delivery of Wi-Fi signals, along with the distance to FSS
> satellites in geostationary orbit should protect FSS uplink operations from
> harmful interference. We nevertheless seek comment on whether any targeted
> rules are needed to ensure the protection of incumbent FSS uplink
> operations. If so, what types of sharing technology or techniques would be
> appropriate and what are the cost implications for manufacturers, vendors,
> and consumers? We also believe that our proposal to apply the existing
> U-NII-3 power rules to the 5.850-5.895 GHz band will
> protect co-channel secondary Amateur Service operations from harmful
> interference. We seek comment on this proposed approach."
>
> Ok team, what comments, if any, should we have?
>
> -Michelle W5NYV
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openresearch.institute/pipermail/ground-station-openresearch.institute/attachments/20191212/0ab6dc13/attachment.html>