Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!gatech!mcnc!unccvax!dya From: dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) Newsgroups: sci.electronics Subject: Re: low power license free packet? Message-ID: <935@unccvax.UUCP> Date: 15 Mar 88 17:46:06 GMT References: <17327@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> <1004@bcd-dyn.UUCP> <4726@ecsvax.UUCP> <2076@ttidca.TTI.COM> Organization: Univ. of NC at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC Lines: 100 Keywords: poachers keep out! In article <2076@ttidca.TTI.COM>, sorgatz@ttidca.TTI.COM ( Avatar) writes: > In article <927@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (Edison Carter) writes: > >***** PROPOSAL ***** > > > > However, since there seems to be a strong low power packet > >faction out there, I do have a proposal: > > > > 3) Move low power packet to the band occupied by the FM2 proposal > >(220 to 225 mHz) > > > Did you happen to research what this band is currently allocated for? 220 > is an allocation to the Amateur Service. It has been the target of a large > number of spectrum-raiders, lately, and FM2 has recently been denied. No > one in the Ham circles will support this proposal, it's that simple. > > > 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. > > > Sure. Why not? ;-) Don't hold your breath... Why not allow packet on ISM. At least I have forwarded reasonable technical material of substance to support my arguments. It seems to me that only a minor change of the rules is required to use the 72 to 76 mHz spectrum. As for FM2, I just found out it was denied. He's back, though, now asking for 90 new FM channels between 32 and 34. Oh, well.... > > > 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. > > > Fine. No shouting. How about a quiet little discussion about just exactly > where the broadcast industry derived it's authority from, regarding the > move below 200 meters? Are you even aware of the history surrounding this? Quite. Now, we all go dark tomorrow. What are you going to do with all that spectrum? 'Taint good for much, is it. > Your *almighty* broadcast industry invaded the short-wave spectrum illegally, > using frequencies, at will, that were designated as part of the Amateur > service. No arrests, no fines, nothing like that...the broadcast industry > just paid-off the government and bought huge chunks of spectrum. Public > interest? Come on. It's pure profit-motive to you guys, the bs about you > serving the public interest is a load because there is so little real > competition in broadcasting..even the Cable franchises were perceived as a > threat. Don't pretend, go research the spectrum allocations a little. Really, little competition in broadcasting? Have you sold one minute of advertising time in your life? Broadcasting is vital and healthy as an economic interest. What in the hell is wrong with the profit motive? Sounds like a whiney bleeding heart liberal political argument, not an engineering basis to accomplish a goal. Taking the huge (know what a 2000 foot tower sells for today?) economic risk to buy or operate a TV station means bigger profits for those who ultimately succeed. That's the way of the world, bub. So my ancestors-in-life took the spectrum they needed? Did the FRC have any authority? The Department of Commerce? Was it even possible to communicate at 800 mHz in the 1920's? I've a frequency chart on my wall from an IRE Journal published in the 30's (at home), it only goes up to 450 mHz. Lets see: AM radio: 107 channels of 10 kHz each: 1.07 mHz occupied FM radio: 100 channels of 200 kHz each: 20.0 mHz occupied TV: 68 channels of 6 mHz each: 408 mHz occupied Lets see, now, that is 429.07 mHz of spectrum being occupied by a how many billion dollar industry? Last time I checked, people were using how many gHz radios? I would say that (except for small allocations for intercity relay, STL, and so on) that there are approximately 25,000 mHz give or take a few not being used by broadcasting direct-to-the consumer. > > What about spread spectrum in the lower sideband? > > > What about it? Spread-spectrum is the 'little-darling' of the NSA, even > Amateurs are not allowed a free hand in using this mode. You think the > Powers-that-Be are going to seriously consider allowing unlicensed ops > to send data at high speeds using this technique? Do you believe in the > Tooth-Fairy? ;-) No, but I believe that it is only a matter of time before every high school kid will build spread spectrum radios with a nice DSP kit, a few CPU's, and so on, as a science fair project. I wish the Amateurs would be allowed spread spectrum useage, or at least allowed to experiment with it. What I am curious about is, is that if commercial broadcasting took all that spectrum, what was anyone else going to do with it? (sigh) David Anthony DataSpan, Inc.