Xref: utzoo rec.ham-radio.packet:985 rec.ham-radio:4132 sci.electronics:2372
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!pyrdc!grebyn!umd5!cgs
From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu (Chris Sylvain)
Newsgroups: rec.ham-radio.packet,rec.ham-radio,sci.electronics
Subject: Re: low power license free packet?
Message-ID: <2382@umd5.umd.edu>
Date: 29 Feb 88 16:02:30 GMT
References: <8802111609.AA16271@decwrl.dec.com> <440@n8emr.UUCP> <357@ge-rtp.GE.COM> <1170@trotter.usma.edu> <2114@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Reply-To: cgs@umd5 (Chris Sylvain)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 19

In article <2114@saturn.ucsc.edu> matthew@ucsck.UCSC.EDU (Matthew Kaufman, KA6SQG) writes:
<In article <1170@trotter.usma.edu> bill@trotter.usma.edu (Bill Gunshannon) writes:
<< ...  The people asking for a Personal Digital Radio Service don't want to
<< be hams. ...

< ... Secondly, the reason that I proposed CB channels instead of some NEW
< set of channels, is that it is very unlikely that any new VHF/UHF
< channels are available for a public packet network. I would prefer
< the top part of CB being taken for packet, instead of the top part
< of 6 meters.

Whazzamadderwit 900 MHz? Why wouldn't the Cellular Radio folks like to provide
a new service and source of revenue for the companies involved ?
Any reason why the FCC would be against it ?
-- 
--==---==---==--
.. the vorpal blade went snicker-snack! ..
   ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU     BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2
   UUCP: ..!uunet!umd5.umd.edu!cgs