Thanks Dawn. I was in a bit of a panic when I asked for the contact info for the fist press release. I went back and re-read your post after that and contacted the TIA press agent directly. I copied this list on that message asking for them to correct the information.
Thanks all and so sorry,

Dawn DiPietro wrote:


I guess at this point I am at a loss of words. The original press release with contact info was posted in my first email. Did the contact person at the TIA ever get back to you about the press release? What should be done in the future
to avoid a situation like this?

I was under the impression there were people on this list to make corrections when the media passes on misinformation.
We do need to thank Frannie for clearing this up.

Below is a link to explain why 608-614 Mhz spectrum cannot be used for wireless broadband.

              "Philips Telemetry System (608-614 MHz)
Fresh capabilities for our proven system (operating at 608-614 MHz) Philips classic telemetry systems are installed in thousands of healthcare facilities around the world, and they have proven both durable and adaptable for over a decade. Upgraded transmitters combine standard and EASI derived 12-lead ECG* monitoring on a single device, run on AA batteries, and provide audio feedback for many tasks. They’re also upgradeable to run on our cellular
               telemetry system."

Apologies to all,
Dawn DiPietro

John Scrivner wrote:

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.


Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on




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/,



This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband

for Communities Act’’.






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:





‘‘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.’’.



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


from harmful interference from such unlicensed


(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


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.

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:



Reply via email to