Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Random Thoughts On Spectrum And Interoperability

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:38:28 -0500

-------- Original Message --------
From: Random Noise <[email-masked]>
Subject: [project25] Random Thoughts On Spectrum And Interoperability
To: [email-masked]

So we go to narrow bandwidth technologies which should
do one of two things:

1)  Keep us all in the existing spectrum we have and
keep us out of the hair of the commercial guys (i.e.
cellular/PCS)

or

2)  We can now have 2 or 4 times as many channels in
our spectrum.

At least that's how it's been explained to
administrators that I work with.  Then the questions
come up.

If item #1 was the case then why do we want or need
the 700 MHz allocation?  If option #2 was the case
then how come I can't get the VHF channels I need to
build the new narrowband digital system (especially
when it would take about 1/6th the number of
channels).
 
Sure seems the feds have us chasing our tails.

P25 doesn't do anything for me for interoperability. 
Even if other agencies in my area convert there will
still be a split in bands.  Fire and EMS here, as well
as law enforcement in neighboring states will remain
VHF.  Our state law enforcement and law enforcement in
one neighboring county will be on UHF, I already have
interoperability with them.

So now it looks as if our new system will be UHF P25. 
It will be UHF for lack of VHF channels.  It will be
P25 because that's where the state of the art is
heading.  But it doesn't seem to address either
conservation of bandwidth or interoperability....just
the opposite.

<heavy sigh>

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/