We have a problem. It appears the press release we read earlier was
wrong. Attached is the exact language of the bill. It is asking for ALL
tv channels except for one small band. I do not know what is wrong with
that one channel but this is actually a VERY GOOD bill. I am sorry for
the mix up. I only acted on what I was told was the purpose of the bill.
Had I read the ACTUAL bill this would not have happened. Dawn DiPietro,
can you please send me contact information on the press outlet that sent
out the previous information? It is time for us to SUPPORT this bill If
you need help with language let me know but apparently I am not much
help as I told you guys the wrong position on this one.. I learned a
valuable lesson here gang. I will never again send out any notices to
all of you for action prior to reading the ACTUAL bill and not just what
he news tells us it is. I am very, very sorry for this terrible mix up.
Please forgive me.
Scriv
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced
the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
*
A BILL
*
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to promote and
expedite wireless broadband deployment in rural and
other areas, and for other purposes.
//
/Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- /
//
/tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled/,
**
*SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. *
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband
for Communities Act’’.
2
**
*SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE *
**
*FOR WIRELESS USE. *
Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
**
*‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM *
**
*MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. *
‘‘Any unused broadcast television spectrum in the
band between 54 and 698 megaHertz, inclusive, other
than spectrum in the band between 608 and 614 mega-
Hertz, inclusive, may be used by unlicensed devices, in-
cluding wireless broadband devices.’’.
**
*SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. *
Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Federal Communications Commission shall—
(1) adopt minimal technical and device rules in
ET Docket Nos. 02–380 and 04–186 to facilitate
the robust and efficient use of the spectrum made
available under section 342 of the Communications
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 342) by unlicensed devices,
including wireless broadband devices; and
(2) establish rules and procedures to—
(A) protect incumbent licensed services, in-
cluding broadcast television and public safety
equipment, operating pursuant to their licenses
3
from harmful interference from such unlicensed
devices;
(B) address complaints from licensed
broadcast stations that an unlicensed device
using such spectrum causes harmful inter-
ference that include verification, in the field, of
actual harmful interference;
(C) require manufacturers of unlicensed
devices designed to be operated in this spectrum
to submit a plan to the Commission to remedy
actual harmful interference to the extent that
harmful interference is found by the Commis-
sion which may include disabling or modifying
the unlicensed device remotely; and
(D) require certification of unlicensed de-
vices designed to be operated in that spectrum
to ensure that they meet the technical criteria
established under paragraph (1) and can per-
form the functions described in subparagraph
(C).
March 31, 2006 (3:22 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Fri 07/04/2006 15:07
*To:* Frannie Wellings
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] TV spectrum
I need a copy of this bill right away.
Scriv
Frannie Wellings wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> The Inslee bill is a good bill - it doesn't do what you're saying
> here. I'm not sure what you've read, but it opens up spectrum between
> 54-698 MHz (except 608-614) for unlicensed use just like one of the
> Senate bills. He's introduced it as a House companion bill. The only
> difference is a bit of additional language about protection from
> interference.
>
> This is legislation we need to support. Can you review the bill and
> get back to me? If you don't have the text I can send it over. I'm out
> of town, but could get a copy to send to you.
>
> Best, Frannie
>
>
>
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
