Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Re: Poll: Is APCO-25 An Appropriate Technology forPublic Safety?]

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 23:53:05 -0500

------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re:  Poll: Is APCO-25 An Appropriate Technology forPublic Safety?

John,
I didn't mean to infer anyone was incompetent, but maybe not familiar
with some of the 'undocumented' requirements of an AM/SSB radio
install.  Even PE's can be ignorant to some facts from time to time
without being incompetent. ;-)

In response to; "However, from what I've seen from acceptance of the 220
MHz commercial band, it is not the panacea that everyone (including me)
thought it would be" ……

I don't think anyone has said 5 KHz technology, or P25, is the 'panacea'
for every wireless application. The point being there IS an existing,
viable 5 KHz technology in addition to anything else being developed for
6.25 KHz channel spacing. 

(6.25 KHz is only 80% spectrum efficient as 5 KHz, but we won't hold
that up as another limitation of 'digital' designs) 

John, there's not enough bandwidth in the internet to explain all the
non-technical roadblocks that have stopped new 5 KHZ technology from
reaching it usage potential and I'm glad you agree that 5 KHz very
narrow band technology could be a great answer to a lot of spectrum
shortfall.

Years of FCC spectrum auction snafu's and delays followed by speculators
that hoarded their channels, manufacturers fighting between themselves
instead of promoting the common cause, old war stories like the WA tests
that aren't applicable, FM manufacturers fears of a technology they
couldn't control through exclusive patents, the rush to accept anything
called 'digital', ham sour grapes over losing something they weren't
using, hucksters and shylocks draining out much needed investment
capitol, etc, is just a few small samples of the extremely difficult
path 5 KHz technology has had to travel.... and it's not over now that
the FCC is allowing another new wave of spectrum predators into the 220
band. 

These aren't technical problems but, as you well know, wireless system
designs and spectrum utilization are political decisions.

But I may be wrong........
Jack Daniel
============================================

John Powell wrote:
> 
> Jack,
> 
> Yes, the tests were conducted over a decade ago using state-of-the art
> 
> equipment then available.  It was described to me directly by the two
> very
> competent engineers (one a PE) who conducted the tests, and it was my
> understanding that, if manufacturer representatives were not there at
> the
> time, they were in any case given an opportunity to comment on and
> offer
> corrective procedures for a retest.
> 
> Yes, that was then and much has happened since.  However, from what
> I've
> seen from acceptance of the 220 MHz commercial band, it is not the
> panacea
> that everyone (including me) thought it would be.  And I'd think that
> if
> the overall characteristics were as good as higher bands, the
> improvement
> in coverage would have people running to 220.  Doesn't seem to be the
> case.
> 
> At 10:44 AM 1/22/2003 -0800, Jack Daniel wrote:
> >John,
> >
> >I use 5 KHz 220 radios at over 75 MPH with no problem and so can you.
> >
> >I'm sorry, but your comment about Washington's tests is not
> applicable
> >in any way and a rehash of ancient history, rumors and incomplete
> >details. I'm surprised because you normally have very complete
> comments.
> 
>

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