[BC] Looks like we got snookered!

Tue Jan 3 13:15:22 CST 2006

JD Davis wrote:

JD  I sure hope your kidding Mw= Megawatts LOL..
Mw Milliwatts
 however since you brought up the subject  I understand that the first 6 
channels In WIFI are
 in the Ham spectrum.
 would Be interesting to put up a 100 watt WIFI here at the house.
 anyone see any articles on this?
Neal- CE WTTM
ka2caf

>Dana,
>
>Where in the world did you find a router with 28 Mega Watts of output!? I
>need one of those!
>
>Lotus Broadcasting
>James "JD" Davis
>IT Manager
>jdavis at lvradio.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
>[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of DANA PUOPOLO
>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 10:14 AM
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [BC] Looks like we got snookered!
>
>Rob:
>
>I have a cell phone that's PLENTY sensitive! My XM radio works in the 2 gHz
>band, cost me 25 bucks and is plenty sensitive too. Works in the house
>without
>the antenna even being near a window!
>
>Wifi works in the 2 gHz band, is dirt cheap and plenty sensitive. My router
>puts out 28 Mw and I can use my computer over 500 feet away.
>My router cost 5 bucks after rebates. 
>
>My 2 gHz and 5 Ghz cordless phones cost nothing and have great range. 
>
>Seems to me that gAS fets are dirt cheap these days.....
>
>-D
>
> 
>
>------ Original Message ------
>Received: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 08:36:21 AM PST
>From: Robert Meuser <Robertm at broadcast.net>
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] Looks like we got snookered!
>
>Mike:
>
>The part Dana missed is that part of the loooong roll out in Canada is that
>they 
>can not get L band radios that are sensitive enough. There is a lot of
>blockage 
>in those bands.  Cellular combats thats by having many local cells. Eureka
>could 
>also have a cellular structure, but is was not built out that way in Canada.
>
>R
>
>Mike McCarthy wrote:
>  
>
>>Dana....
>>
>>The broadcasters, particularly the big guns didn't want the new spectrum 
>>which would in effect give the peanut whistles equal footing in audio 
>>quality and improved coverage. They STILL DON'T EITHER. This is long 
>>before the last ownership dereg. took place and CC, et al. were able to 
>>go on a buying spree. That and the industry and technology were not 
>>prepared for a new band.  Things change....over 10 years.
>>
>>Who could have imaged wireless broadband and the myriad of new things 
>>which now requires spectrum for short distance communications needing as 
>>much as they do now.
>>
>>Yes, we got Ibiquity and I agree it's a neutered system which has great 
>>harm potential to the AM band. But after seeing the LONG roll outs in 
>>Britain and Canada, we're rolling out Ibiquity a whole lot faster here.
>>
>>MM
>>
>>At 05:58 AM 1/3/2006 -0800, DANA PUOPOLO wrote
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Check this out:
>>>
>>>http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20051230-083814-1294r
>>>
>>>If I recall, a slice of this spectrum was the VERY place where Eureka 
>>>DAB was
>>>to have gone. Hmmm...I'm wondering why the space wasn't available when
>>>broadcasters wanted it (Seems the Pentagon needed it to test missles), 
>>>but
>>>when the cellular industry wants it: *POOF!!* there it is!
>>>
>>>Of did Ibiquity, the NAB and the "status quo" broadcasters get their 
>>>way A la'
>>>lobbying?
>>>
>>>I find it interesting that the ONLY people who GET DIGITAL RADIO SLOTS 
>>>are the
>>>ones that already own analog ones. Wasn't the original purpose of DAB to:
>>>"Level the playing field"? I guess having a few consolidators owning 
>>>most of
>>>the good stations is level enough for the FCC and Congress.
>>>
>>>Well, it looks like the broadcasters (and their short term greed) just 
>>>shot
>>>themselves in the foot - AGAIN!
>>>
>>>See, one of the things the cellular industry is going to DO with this new
>>>spectrum is deliver CONTENT (remember that word in earlier 
>>>discussions?) to
>>>the public.  Guess who's going to get short shrift as a result?
>>>
>>>The Broadcasters......
>>>
>>>I learned a moral a long time ago. It said: "Be careful of what you 
>>>wish for,
>>>because it might come true". The Consolidators and NAB wished for 
>>>Ibiquity and
>>>that's EXACTLY what they got - a crappy, neutered DAB system - but the
>>>cellular industry gets the last laugh here, because THEY got (the) 45 
>>>mHz of
>>>spectrum that the consolidators and NAB gave up - to compete against 
>>>them!
>>>
>>>Along with another 45 Mhz in the 2.1 gig band....
>>>
>>>-D
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
>>http://www.radiolists.net/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
>http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This is the BROADCAST mailing list
>To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
>For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: http://www.radiolists.net/
>
>
>  
>