For many years the FCC has not allowed FM broadcast stations within
certain distances of each other where a 10.7 MHz frequency difference
existed. Not exactly the same thing, but did show an understanding
of what can go wrong as a result of good receiver front end
selectivity. In AM and FM broadcasting there has also been required
distances between 1st and 2nd adjacent channels, only partially
because of overload issues but more so because of occupied bandwidth
and overlapping. I'm not sure how much more it would cost to build
GPS receivers with better front ends, but I'm sure it would've priced
GPS devices out of the hands of many consumer level users. The FCC
under the direction of Congress has made (allowed) some pretty stupid
moves in the past bunch of years. In my opinion, the FCC has
forgotten what their purpose is, and being run by attorneys has made
the situation that much worse as there are very few attorneys that
understand the un-revocable physics of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Burt, K6OQK
At 10:07 AM 6/9/2011, [email protected] wrote
On the other hand, what can be said about the wisdom of engineers that
designed a product that cannot withstand any interference from adjoining
spectrum holders? It has been known for at least the last 6 years that
LightSquared's predecessor was going to occupy that spectrum with a land
based system.
Does the GPS world really have much to say about the interference if
LightSquared keeps their transmitters clean and out of the GPS spectrum?
-Chuck Harris
Burt I. Weiner Associates
Broadcast Technical Services
Glendale, California U.S.A.
[email protected]
www.biwa.cc
K6OQK
_______________________________________________
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.
