Order Tray | Contact Us | Home | SIG Lists

[Ham-80211] Re: High power 2.4 GHz rules change

Jeff King jeff at aerodata.net
Fri May 19 16:40:58 UTC 2006

On Fri, 19 May 2006 10:59:35 -0500, DuBose Walt Civ AETC CONS/LGCA wrote:

>If a WISP wants to put in a system on 420-450 in a valley in Big
>Bend Nat. Park in one of the uninhabited valleys, go for it.   No
>one will care. 

But that describes the state of 440 across the bulk of the U.S. land mass, and in particular where WISP's want to service. I'm sure El Paso has a multitude of internet options where as parts of Cambria Township michigan does not. WISP's, by and large, serve rural areas. 

And I hardly think no-one will care if they start to set up shop on 440 based on your good word.

>>Tell me why the goverment should provide welfare to the WISP
>For the reason previously stated...because it is of great benefit to
> citizens.  

And so is my cell phone, that I pay $50 a month for. But they had to pay for the spectrum. This is called capitalism.

>Also, the Executive Branch and Congress agree that there
>is a need for wireless broadband Internet access in the U.S. and
>have set this as a policy statement and have drafted and in some
>cases passed legislation to that end.    

What is that passed legislation?

>To complete this policy, IMHO, WISPs must have their own band(s) for
> operation that is NOT shared by another (other) service(s).  

See, what you are failing to see here, is WISP's are a FOR PROFIT business. This is the distinction between amateur radio and other services. We contribute to the public good without charging the public for this. WISP's do not do this. I am in full support of expansion of the Part 15 bands as well as some of the white space legislation the WISP's have before the FCC. However, if this WISP's want protected airspace, I think they should at least pay some price for this, although I agree no where near what the cell phone providers paid.

More information about the ham-80211 mailing list