From another list a few of the board members are on.
Can someone take a look at this and see if they can come up with a filing?
I can help but don't have time to do the whole thing. I can probably also
put you in touch with people that can help you with details/understanding of
the issues.
laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp!
64.146.146.12 (net meeting)
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Marcus" To: < >
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: [TVWHITESPACE] Noteworthy FCC PN and filing deadline
If you check the FCC OET website, there is a
sleeper" there that may have a big impact on the whitespace proceeding:
12/16/05
Office of Engineering and Techology seeks comment on a Petition for Waiver
of Part 74 of the Rules, filed by Nuclear Energy Institute and United Telcom
Council.
PN: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-05-3216A1.pdf
Petition:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518190717
Just in time for the holidays my former colleagues released this PN, perhaps
hoping this group would miss it.
Comment Date: January 17, 2006
Reply Comment Date: January 30, 2006
The PN responds to an 7/20/05 petition from the nuclear power trade
association, NEI, and the better known UTC asking for permission to use Part
74 wireless 2 way systems in nuclear power plants. Reading between the
lines, one gets the impression that, like many of the wireless mikes, these
systems have been used illegally for a while and they are now trying to
legalize their de facto use.
The petition states on p. 14 (p. 18 of the Acrobat document) "Accordingly,
Petitioners contend that, today, there is no viable alternative equipment
that would provide the requisite performance features necessary to assist in
complying with the NRC’s
ALARA mandate." There is no discussion of why readily available Part 90
equipment can not be used for this function.
Since what they are seeking if hands free wireless connectivity, it would
appear that many Part 90 systems would meet their need and that Part 90
licensing should be easy in the needed locations. I suspect the part 74
equipment is being used because it is cheaper or perhaps more readily
available.
So why is this important? The FCC has a habit of giving UHF TV spectrum use
to special interests without ever looking at the issues in 04-186. 3 years
ago there was a sweetheart deal to give Hollywood interests special UHF TV
spectrum access. See Section 74.870 if you missed it.
After a few more of such giveaways, there will either be no whitespace or it
will be pockmarked with high priority special interests that should have
been accomodated in Part 90.
I urge the TVWhitespace community to meet the January 17 filing date and
tell the FCC that the petitioner has failed to justify why other
alternatives are not available. Alternatively, any access to TV spectrum
should be limited to channels 14-20 - already encumbered by public safety
sharing.
You may also wish to point out to FCC how the granting of this petition
would complicate 04-186 proposals when there are other alternatives
available for the petitioner.
Best wishes to all for a happy holiday!
Mike Marcus
www.marcus-spectrum.com
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
