Subject: [NEXTEL-1] RE: [220] WARREN C. HAVENS Denied petition for declaratory ruling and the wai...]

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:32:06 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
   From: "Todd Ellis" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [220] WARREN C. HAVENS Denied petition for declaratory ruling and the wai...
     To: <[email-masked]>

Well, here’s a comment regarding 220 as a whole, and AMTS as a part of it all…

There has been a lot of folks who believe that they can do a number of things on AMTS
channels.  I know for a fact that Warren was looking to build out a number of land-based
systems no where near water (ie. Arizona) and work with a major manufacturer for this
effort.  His concept was to provide channels to those areas where there may be a pent-up
need for communications.  Well, Warren has a fairly good initial idea, that 220 could be
utilized at 12.5 KHz channels better than it is now around the coastal areas.  What the
FCC has not done is re-evaluate the entire 220 MHz spectrum for better usability and a
revamp of the channels.

There has been a channel audit that has gone out to 220 licensees, and of course, there
will be some that fall away from the pack since they went out of business or whatever.
However, the AMTS “whitespace” across the country is incredibly wasteful.  There is a need
for radio services in this spectrum, no doubt.  However, I think the FCC needs to
reconsider how the 220 band operates.

If anything, leave 220-222 alone.  Leave it for existing voice users, but promote narrow
band data from companies like Tantalus, MDS, and Sofia.  There are products, give them
reasonable prices and coordination for obtaining them.

The AMTS whitespace is completely wasted in many areas (here in Raleigh, as an example).
There are plenty of suitable 220 MHz range systems available, in conventional, Passport,
and MPT-1327 configurations from at least four different manufacturers.  Not saying pull
out the channels from the hams, but goodness, imagine 125 nationwide channels with a 5 MHz
split, and the data guys sitting at 220-222.  And radios already type-accepted for the
range on the market today.  Instant roll-out.

And this does NOT require a band manager to work it all out.

And by the way, I know of folks selling AMTS radios interconnected to land-based
businesses who have nothing to do with ship-to-shore or maritime businesses.  The AMTS
equipment is out there, located near waterways, but the overlap into the private sector is
already there.  What’s the real use of AMTS then?

Todd Ellis

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 11:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [220] WARREN C. HAVENS Denied petition for declaratory ruling and the wai...

So what does this mean for dispatch in general on AMTS, and Mobex?

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:32:37 -0400

------- Original Message --------
   From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [220] WARREN C. HAVENS Denied petition for declaratory ruling and the wai...
     To: [email-masked]

In a message dated 4/24/2003 12:46:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [email-masked]
writes:

> You may have to add wheels to your bass boat next time you want to use
> AMTS channels on the freeway!
>
> Just kidding, we're all waiting for someone who knows what they are
> talking about to respond to the group.
>
> We used to have FCC visitors here now and then.
>
> It probably doesn't matter what the FCC says anyway, so many people
> ignore the rules and get away with it now days.

1.  I don't have a bass boat, unless you mean one that plays music!  :)
2.  I THOUGHT I understood the Rules just as the FCC had stated in their two Havens
Orders.  However, I get people telling me other things, so I'm looking for some additional
input.
3.  Yeah, just ask the people on 800 MHz and 900 MHz channels that supposedly are licensed
for "internal use" systems for 500 units, but are essentially a "business" (used
metaphorically) with two or three employees a thousand miles away.

Alan
                   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---

From: Marcel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 13:31:21 -0400

-------- Original Message --------
From: Jack Daniel <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [220] WARREN C. HAVENS Denied petition for declaratory ruling and the wai...
To: [email-masked]

It probably doesn't matter what the FCC says anyway, so many people
ignore the rules and get away with it now days.
================================================

> So what does this mean for dispatch in general on AMTS, and Mobex?

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/O10svD/Me7FAA/AG3JAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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