Scott Dorsey wrote:
Chuck Harris wrote:

Of course, UPS only asked for the bandwidth. It was the FCC
and congress that gave them what they asked for. What UPS wanted
to do was perfectly valid, and a good idea too. If there is any
blame to pass out, it rightfully belongs to the FCC and congress.


This is true. It's easier to boycott UPS than the FCC and congress,
though.

Being easier doesn't make it more effective. Would you boycott
Chevrolet because someone robbed your favorite bank and used a Chevy
as a get-away car?

UPS thought they needed some spectrum, and they asked for it. FCC
didn't see significant usage of the 220 band, and offered it up.
FCC could just as easily have offered up a small chunk of some
microwave band.

All votes are equal in value, but not all voters. Some just
vote what the newspapers, and the parties say they should, others
write letters, make phone calls, create blogs, ... They get more
political power than the usual voter. If you want to get the spectrum
back, start lobbying for it. Come up with a reason why hams should
have it back... We probably won't get it back, on account of ham
radio being among the "walking-dead". (and yes, I am a ham, so I
get to make observations like that.)

Is there anyone who hasn't ultimately benefited from the ability
to track their packages? UPS forged the way, but all shippers
now provide the capability. It just happened that the existing
cell phone infrastructure was a more practical way of providing the
tracking service than was building an entirely new infrastructure
on 220MHz... something that, in hindsight, the FCC should have
realized.


Also true. However, I have many more unkind things to say about the
spectrum management folks at the FCC. And the enforcement guys all
seem to be doing nothing other than busting FM pirates and breast-showing
broadcasters, while badly-maintained cable TV networks across the country
spew trash all over the VHF bands and touch lamps that blatantly violate
Part 15 are available at every Wal-Mart.

They don't violate part 15! They are perfectly in complience. The
violation comes when the user doesn't prevent his device from interferring
with any service. It was idiotic of the Congress, and the FCC to allow
that wording, but they did...and we didn't hold them to task for it.

-Chuck