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: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>


-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to