Mark wrote:
if the FCC is going to allow high power terrestrial transmitters
in frequency bands adjacent to those used for receiving weak
satellite signals
it would be helpful if they would provide some specific guidance in
terms of the
field strength levels that receivers and their antennas will be expected to
tolerate.
They will, when they publish final technical rules for the new
terrestrial services. In keeping with the modern FCC trend, it will
presumably be in the form of an "emissions mask" that the terrestrial
transmitters must meet. I assume that any transmitters installed
pursuant to the ATC rules are govered by an emissions mask that was
already adopted by the FCC in one of the ATC orders, which may simply
be re-adopted in the terrestrial proceeding.
It would be even better if the FCC would deem field strength levels
in excess of this amount to be harmful interference
That will be the case when the technical rules for the terrestrial
services are adopted, and I presume it is the case with respect to
any transmitters installed pursuant to the ATC rules.
Setting the field strengths levels in accordance with sound engineering
practices, getting input from stake holders and providing a multi
year phase in
period would be nice as well (:
Well, whenever satellite services operate adjacent to terrestrial
services, one person's sound engineering is another's unmitigated
disaster. I refer you to the voluminous record in the WCS/SDARS
proceeding for confirmation of this. (Go to
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/ and search for
Proceeding Numbers 07-293 and 95-91. Look at filings by the WCS
Coalition, the several largest telecommunications companies, and the
SDARS licensees Sirius and XM (now merged)) The FCC is getting input
from stakeholders, but understand that a bunch of folks in and out of
government think mobile broadband is the primary key to national
innovation and competiveness going forward, and they are all scared
spitless. The FCC sees the US becoming a third-world country with
respect to broadband (particularly, mobile broadband) and is in a
full-on panic about it.
Now, I'm not sure I agree with them -- but then I have a hate-hate
relationship with my cell phone and probably don't use 100 minutes of
air time annually, (though I do use a PDA for work e-mail quite a
lot, but I've never once used it to view a web site, IM, Twit, or
whatever). They may be right, or they may be wrong, but (like
Pascal's Wager) many people will be so scared of the possibility that
they will feel the need to go that way even if they don't really
believe in it. So, the reality is that we *will* be getting as much
additional wireless spectrum as the FCC can, in its panic, find and
reallocate. (All of that would be true just on policy grounds
alone. In reality, all of the policy considerations have a fierce
tailwind in the form of an extremely well-funded and
politically-savvy telecommunications industry, which stands to make $
trillions over the next 20 or 30 years.) The FCC is rushing to
implement a 5-year plan (with a 3-year sub-plan), so that is about
the most phase-in we are going to get.
Best regards,
Charles
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
