Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: low power license free packet?
Message-ID: <431@splut.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 88 15:32:56 GMT
References: <927@unccvax.UUCP>
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 33

From article <927@unccvax.UUCP>, by dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter):
>       3) Move low power packet to the band occupied by the FM2 proposal
> (220 to 225 mHz)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In case you haven't noticed, there's an actively used ham band there.
There's a current proposal to grab only the bottom two MHz of that band and
even that is being heavily fought by the amateur community. There is enough
activity on that band that cannot be moved elsewhere to justify it remaining
in the amateur service. Several proposals in the past have been put forth to
steal this band, and all have failed. Without exception.

>       4) Allow low power packet to operate between channels 4 and 5.
>       5) Allow low power packet on the ISM (Industrial, Scientific
> and Medical) frequencies.

These two are much more reasonable.

>      I don't want a shouting  match either, but the encroachment of
> the UHF broadcast spectrum is a matter which I will highly defend,
> as a licensed broadcaster who is taking the risk to serve the public
> interest.  

I will just as strongly defend every hertz of the amateur spectrum from
those who would take it for commercial purposes. Hams serve the public
interest just as much as, if not more than, commercial broadcasters.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD  CI$: 71036,1603
uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay
Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.