ACK

On Jul 28, 2021, at 16:41, John Ronan via 44Net <44net(a)mailman.ampr.org> wrote: I disagree, I'm after reading the proposal carefully front to back for the third time today. The more I read it the more I'm coming to the conclusion is that it seems to be un-necessary work being thrust upon everyone in the 44.128/10 space to renumber their networks just to have the exact same feature set and (now thoroughly annoyed) users after all the effort. This doesn't actually make any sense to me now. Surely we can be more ambitious and do better than that? John EI7IG

Hello Matt, thanks a lot for the message! Unfortunately, as I said in previous e-mails, we cannot use a space such as RFC1918 or Carrier Grade NAT because it is not globally unique. There are ISPs that use 10/8 addresses that are assigned to end users in their WAN, and there are ISPs that use RFC6598 for their customers’ WAN connections too. So there will be overlaps, conflicts, and problems. We absolutely have to ensure global uniqueness and guarantee non-overlap for this to work at a large scale. And the only way we know how to do this is with space from 44/8. Again, going back to the similar analogy of RF spectrum: Why should we give these “radio amateurs” so much and so valuable spectrum? Why waste literal billions worth of it globally? If they want to communicate, they should use the phone system or the Internet like everything else. I don’t see a reason for them to get this tremendously expensive resource “because they can” or “because they want to”. Last December, Greece, a tiny country with only 10M people proceeded to rent spectrum for 5G. They rented this spectrum for 15 years (not forever) and only in a few bands (not across the entire thing). Just for one tiny country, just for 15 years, just for one technology (5G) the government made 372M EUR or close to $450M. This is more money than the entire 44/8. If we add up the cost of the entire 5G spectrum around the world, we are clearly in the billions of dollars. They gave a 15-year license for parts of: 3400-3800 MHz, 700 MHz, 2 GHz, and 26 GHz. Today radio amateurs have “for free” so many more bands, so many more allocations, so much more spectrum and bandwidth. And why? One could argue that 5G will serve much more people and much more important use cases than ham radio spectrum. One could also argue that a /24 on 44 net provides less to the society as a whole than a /24 in AWS or anyone else. Should we return all our spectrum back because we “waste millions of dollars worth of resource”? I think we’re “wasting” not just millions with spectrum but probably tens of billions. Would we be happy if the FCC told our US friends that they’re taking back all spectrum allocated to amateur radio and they can now use the frequencies of WiFi or FM (Music) Radio if they want, as secondary users, and never cause any interference or problems to primary users (stations or WiFi or BT devices or microwave ovens)? Technically if they do this, they don’t “waste” billions of dollars of space, and they can push these “intranet” people to a shared medium. Let them then figure out an ISM band where they don’t overlap with any other use case in this local area. Take back the dedicated resources. — As you can tell, there is a large argument to be made for using 44.128/10 for the ham-to-ham communication. The reason we want radio amateurs to use this space is because it’s theirs, and they can do whatever they want with it. They got it allocated, so they can use it. Hopefully, unlike the real RF spectrum, it won’t be taken back from them if they don’t… Antonis _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net