<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2658.34">
<TITLE>RE: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>See my answers below... Walt/K5YFW</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>From: ham-80211-bounces@lists.tapr.org</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>[<A HREF="mailto:ham-80211-bounces@lists.tapr.org">mailto:ham-80211-bounces@lists.tapr.org</A>]On Behalf Of jeff@aerodata.net</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 10:36 AM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>To: TAPR Mailing List for Ham Radio Use of 802.11</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>Subject: RE: [Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> You have amateur radio using 420-450 MHz in the most populated areas of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the U.S.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Ahh.. careful use of words. "Populated areas". Does this mean you disagree</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>with my statement that over the bulk of the U.S. landmass, 440 is as dead</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>as a doornail (highly underutlized) most of the time?</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Generally speaking the more dense the population the greater the</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>"requirement" for communications. </FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>I don't disagree with you statement, it simple not relevant to the</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>discussion of allowing multiple usage of the 420-450 band or any </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>band.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>If a WISP wants to put in a system on 420-450 in a valley in Big Bend Nat. Park</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>in one of the uninhabited valleys, go for it. No one will care. However, if</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>they want to do this in El Paso, you will hear screams from both sides of the boarder.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> FYI amateur radio IS really a secondary user in the 420-450 MHz band as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the military can and does use it.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>That can be said about just about anything. If the military wants it, the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>military will take it. Do you commonly have problems with the Military on</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>440?</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>It IS NOT TRUE that if the military wants a certain frequency they can have </FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>it. I know of several cases where the Navy and Army really wanted certain frequencies and were flatly told that they could not have/use them for any</FONT></P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>reason.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>Yes, we have problems with military encroachment on 420-450 in Texas, the Southwest and Northwest.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>> The solution to the WISP problem and the entire wireless broadband access</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> is</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> the governments failing to provided a large protected frequency band for</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> such purpose...that is IF they do mean for WISP activity to be a primary</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>> distributor of broadband Internet access.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The undisputed RF device that changed the late 20th century as well as</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>provided a undisputed tool for Ecom's, was the cell phone. Cell phone</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>companies provide a service at a cost to the consumer. Yet they paid</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=2>billions of dollars for these protected frequency.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP industry?</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>For the reason previously stated...because it is of great benefit to</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>citizens. Also, the Executive Branch and Congress agree that there is</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>a need for wireless broadband Internet access in the U.S. and have set</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>this as a policy statement and have drafted and in some cases passed</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>legislation to that end.</FONT>
</P>
<P> <FONT SIZE=2>To complete this policy, IMHO, WISPs must have their own band(s) for</FONT>
<BR> <FONT SIZE=2>operation that is NOT shared by another (other) service(s).</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>