On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:01:43 EDT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

I think the argument you'll get is that 24MHz above channel 51 has already
been set aside for public-safety, should it really need more below channel 21?

Now you have me talking about my business but here I go anyway:

Every petition that we have submitted for our Public Safety clients
who need expansion into non-Public Safety Pool frequencies in T-Band
has been met with what I consider a boiler-plate query from the FCC
that has to be answered formally on the record about whether our
client has considered a 700 MHz system. What we say is this:

1. This is an expansion of existing system which already operates in
T-Band and there are no more Public Safety Pool T-Band channels
available that would not result in harmful interference to another
user of that band.

2. The characteristics of 700 MHz propagation and building
penetration are such that it would require anywhere from five to ten
times as many repeater sites as a T-band system, each one costing
three to five times as much as a T-Band site costs.

3. It is dangerous and unsafe to require a public safety officer
(police or fire) to carry two radios where the possibility exists that
the "wrong" radio would be used in a life-and-death situation.

4. There is no usable 700 MHz equipment on the market at the present
time. Existing 800 MHz equipment is not compatible with the operating
schemes proposed for the 700 MHz band.

5. The systems under consideration are taxpayer funded, and it is
egregious to abandon an existing system and procure a new system just
because the 700 MHz spectrum has been designated for future use. The
taxpayers won't stand for it, even in the name of "homeland security",
the magic words du jour, and obtaining additional sites is a
protracted and expensive procedure in today's environmental-conscious
urban and suburban environment (can you say NIMBY ?).

The documentation to support all the above literally runs into the
thousands of pages - all at the taxpayers' expense.

I'd say more but it would disparage a major manufacturer of equipment.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net