>-----Original Message-----
>From: Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:40 AM
>To: 'FCC Discussion'
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [TVWHITESPACE] Noteworthy FCC PN and filing deadline
>
>Anyone see a reason not to support this proposal?
>
>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: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <>
>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 10:27 AM
>Subject: Re: [TVWHITESPACE] Noteworthy FCC PN and filing deadline
>
>
>> At 11:41 AM 12/21/2005, Michael Marcus wrote:
>>>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
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> Thanks for noticing this and bringing it up. I think we should file
>> something which points out that this is more easily resolved in the
>> context of the pending rulemaking in 04-186.
>>
>> We must be careful, however, to make clear that we just looooove public
>> safety and infrastructure and would never, ever, even for one minute think
>> of getting in the way of valuable infrastructure services. But the
>> approach proposed here is too narrow, and very limited. Imagine what
>> greater utility could be obtained by adopting the proposal on 04-186
>> instead.
>>
>> If anyone else has interest, feel free to contact me privately or on list.
>>
>> And speaking of public safety, the FCC sent to Congress a mandatory report
>> on use of spectrum by public safety.
>> http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-262865A1.pdf
>>
>> As I don't think I ever saw the public notice, and wouldn't have had time
>> to comment even if I had, I can't fault the FCC for ignoring the potential
>> for unlicensed access to expand the capabilities of public spectrum rather
>> than just tweaking the 700 MHz band. But this may raise an opportunity
>> for a White Paper response suggesting that cognitive radios and greater
>> access to unlicensed spectrum would provider superior benefits.
>>
>> Harold
>
>--
>WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
-- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
