[time-nuts] House subcommittee Democrats Urge Finding a Way for LightSquared and GPS Users to Co-Exist
jim77742 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 21 00:26:07 UTC 2011
Fibre is what we're doing in Australia. To the premises. Just about
Can someone please tell me why they don't just pick another frequency for
On 21 September 2011 09:33, Peter Gottlieb <nerd at verizon.net> wrote:
> Fiber is fantastic. I have FIOS at both my locations and it has been
> flawless. The best product Verizon has ever had. Not only that - the cable
> is nearly worthless as scrap so the problem of wire theft in remote
> locations goes away.
> Save wireless for mobile devices, and where you need greater density (in
> cities) use more frequent, smaller cells.
> On 9/20/2011 7:12 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
>> In my opinion, the only real solution is a fiber optic build out.
>> The bandwidth is fantastic and the technology appears to be
>> quite sound. Unlike BPL or wireless networks, Fiber optic internet
>> does not pollute the RF spectrum. Save the RF spectrum for the
>> odd domicile that is off the electric grid.
>> On 09/20/2011 12:53 PM, Charles P. Steinmetz wrote:
>>> Brian wrote:
>>> the FCC has always been the 500-pound gorilla cracking down on
>>>> everybody from drunken ham operators to national networks and 2-second
>>>> "wardrobe malfunctions." Why don't the FCC and the Navy just get together
>>>> and say, "screw you, LightSquared
>>> As I have said here several times, the FCC itself has adopted as its
>>> highest priority finding 500 MHz of additional spectrum for mobile broadband
>>> services. The FCC believes that this is absolutely essential to the
>>> economic survival of the country. I happen to disagree -- I think that
>>> 99.96% of the beneficiaries will be people playing multi-player games,
>>> watching re-runs of jersey shore, and downloading porn, and you can't run an
>>> economy on those -- but that IS what the FCC thinks, and that is clearly
>>> what is driving it to make many of the decisions it has made in the last 5
>>> years or so.
>>> http://download.broadband.gov/**plan/national-broadband-plan.**pdf<http://download.broadband.gov/plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf>(NOTE: 12 MB download)
>>> Interestingly, based on the data the FCC relies on to reach its
>>> conclusion, even 500 MHz of additional mobile broadband spectrum will not be
>>> nearly enough to solve the problem it perceives.
>>> If it becomes inescapable based on testing (more of which is almost
>>> certain to be conducted) that widespread terrestrial operations in the
>>> adjacent MSS band would seriously impact GPS operations and that there is no
>>> reasonable possibility of mitigation, I believe the FCC will ultimately tell
>>> LS it cannot use the band in this manner. But note that under FCC precedent
>>> "serious impact" and "reasonable mitigation" do not mean, and have never
>>> meant, that absolutely no existing receivers will be affected.
>>> Best regards,
>>> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
>>> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/**
>>> and follow the instructions there.
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/**
> and follow the instructions there.
More information about the time-nuts