Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!elroy!cit-vax!peting
From: peting@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Mark Peting)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: low power license free packet?
Message-ID: <5661@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Date: 6 Mar 88 01:21:38 GMT
References: <17327@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <1004@bcd-dyn.UUCP> <4726@ecsvax.UUCP> <918@unccvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: peting@cit-vax.UUCP (Mark Peting)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Lines: 37

I recently proposed the use of UHF television channels for packet radio
and saw a posted response/flame from David Anthony article <918@unccvax.UUCP>
with some criticism of this idea.

First criticism is that many channels that are not being actively used
for UHF television are still not usable for other services to protect
UHF television receivers from their own poor selectivity.  In my
original posting I suggested the use of unused channels, meaning those
channels that could be used for other services and were not, rather
than channels without a UHF signal.  I apologize for my lack of
clarity, since I clearly caused Mr. Anthony much concern about this.
What I am suggesting is that those channels that will someday later be
used for high or low power television or whatnot are currently free for
other uses, and it seems reasonable to use them until they are granted
permanently to some use.  All that is asked is for the FCC to put out a
list of currently free channels for each area, with care taken to avoid
interference, to be used with the understanding that they can be taken
away at any time.  If a packet radio is set to an active frequency it
will not key up, and if is is set to protected frequency it can be
found without interference from a high power source, so the locating of
violators is readily possible.

Second criticism is that these frequencies are better left for other
uses.  This is already understood, all that is asked is to use them
until they do become needed for other uses.  I do not propose to set
them aside for packet radio forever.

The third criticism is that packet radio will not work at these
frequencies due to multipath interference.  This is simply not the
case.  Hams use frequencies both higher and lower quite successfully,
and also multipath interference can be dealt with easily with adaptive
equalizers.

I am interested in any comments/criticisms of this but I do ask that
this be a discussion and not a shouting match.

Mark Peting
peting@csvax.caltech.edu