Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:7989 comp.misc:12424
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!darkstar!ucscb.UCSC.EDU!woody
From: woody@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Bill Woodcock)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Data-PCS Petition - Please Comment
Summary: Who's being displaced, and two possible solutions...
Message-ID: <15472@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 7 May 91 03:06:15 GMT
References: <52465@apple.Apple.COM> <1991May5.051210.23293@zoo.toronto.edu> <NELSON.91May5101041@sun.clarkson.edu>
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Followup-To: comp.dcom.lans
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 74


    
        > henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
        > This public appeal, and its wording, make me
        > very suspicious that somebody's trying to
        > pull a fast one.  "Don't worry about what the
        > fine print says, you wouldn't understand it
        > anyway, just hurry up and sign it."
         
        > nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
        > Not to mention the fact that their petition
        > doesn't specify who's going to *lose*
        > spectrum.  I also couldn't find a copy of the
        > petition posted to rec.radio.amateur.misc,
        > where there are a number of people qualified
        > to discuss the specifics of it.  I also
        > noticed a separate copy of the article posted
        > to comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc.
    
    Insofar as I know, there are two groups concertedly opposed to Apple's
    proposition:  Telcos,  (primarily  BellSouth  and AT&T) and utilities.
    (Local public utilities, and railroads.)
    
    The FCC has, at the behest  of  a  group  of  Telcos,  been  making  a
    long-term inquiry into the possibility of PCS (Personal Communications
    Services) and PCN (Personal Communications  Networks)  since  June  of
    1990.  Since  the  beginning  of  this year, Apple has "subverted" the
    Telco's proposal, which included provision for _both voice and  data_,
    and was moving ahead at a leisurely pace, changed it to suit their own
    needs, accelerated the pace, and refused to answer any questions about
    their intentions.
    
    Basically, this mean  that  they  dropped  all  provisions  for  voice
    communications,  which  I  consider  vital,  since currently allocated
    cellular bandwidth won't last  us  forever,  and  have  been  avoiding
    dealing  with issues like security, what to do with the people who are
    currently using the bandwidth, and where to expand cellular to.
    
    So, this brings us to the utilities, who are the current licensees  of
    the  bandwidth.  So  far,  the primary users of the "Operational Fixed
    Service Licenses" in   this   area  of  the  spectrum    are    public
    utilities, like  your  gas,  water, electric, and possibly  even  your
    local  telco.  They've been using the bandwidth to communicate between
    offices,  and to  communicate  with  service  vehicles. Railroads have
    also invested heavily in transmitter towers located every 40-50  miles
    along  their rights-of-way.  Currently, most estimates show that about
    a third of a billion  dollars  worth    of    capital   investment  in
    frequency-specific equipment  would  be  rendered useless, if  Apple's
    version of  the  bill  passes  unmodified.    There  is  currently  no
    provision  in  Apple's  bill for  compensation,  and I find this to be
    a rather remote prospect, in  any  case,   since  Apple  has  proposed
    that  the  bandwidth  be  made available to all computer vendors.
    
    I suggest two possible compromises:
    
    1)  Apple  could  just  use the bandwidth that the FCC has already set
    aside for the purpose of unlicensed microwave  transmission  in  Parts
    15.247 and  15.249.    Several  vendors  have  already  started making
    networking components which utilize this area of the spectrum, and are
    having notable success.  This area is significantly more hospitable to
    high-bitrate communications than the  even  shorter  frequencies  that
    Apple has asked for, but Apple couldn't monopolize it.
    
    2) Apple could, as Motorola has done, just buy an expanse of spectrum,
    up where there's little demand, and do whatever they  feel  like  with
    it.   They   wouldn't  need  to  worry  about  displacing  anyone,  or
    commandeering anyone  elses'  planned  expansion,  and  they  wouldn't
    have any competition within that spread.
                             
                            -Bill Woodcock
                             BMUG NetAdmin

________________________________________________________________________________
bill.woodcock.iv..woody@ucscb.ucsc.edu..2355.virginia.st..berkeley.ca.94709.1315