Thanks for the link, it seemed kind of strange why that little slice of 6 MHz was left out.
John >-----Original Message----- >From: Dawn DiPietro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2006 06:43 AM >To: 'WISPA General List' >Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [WISPA] TV spectrum] > >All, > >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. >http://www.medical.philips.com/us/products/patient_monitoring/products/philips_telemetry_system/index.html > > "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. >> Scriv >> >> >> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES >> >> Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mrs. BLACKBURN, and Ms. BALDWIN) introduced >> >> the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on >> >> * >> >> A BILL >> >> * >> >> 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/, >> >> ** >> >> *SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. * >> >> This Act may be cited as the ‘‘American Broadband >> >> for Communities Act’’. >> >> 2 >> >> ** >> >> *SEC. 2. UNUSED TELEVISION SPECTRUM MADE AVAILABLE * >> >> ** >> >> *FOR WIRELESS USE. * >> >> 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: >> >> ** >> >> *‘‘SEC. 342. UNUSED BROADCAST TELEVISION SPECTRUM * >> >> ** >> >> *MADE AVAILABLE FOR WIRELESS USE. * >> >> ‘‘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.’’. >> >> ** >> >> *SEC. 3. FCC TO FACILITATE USE. * >> >> 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 >> >> 3 >> >> from harmful interference from such unlicensed >> >> devices; >> >> (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 >> >> (C). >> >> 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. >> Scriv >> >> >> 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: email@example.com > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- WISPA Wireless List: firstname.lastname@example.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/