[620] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: Perhaps dismissal of packet radio in the classroom is unwarranted
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Gunshannon)
Wed Apr 24 13:54:07 1991
From: bill@tuatara.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
To: brian@napa.telebit.com
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 13:52:39 EDT
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: <9104241619.AA09526>; from "Brian Lloyd" at Apr 24, 91 9:19 am
I don't think Part 15 or the current crop of 900 Mhz Spread Spectrum boxes
is the answer. The answer lies in proving that the technology exists to do
the job today (it does) and then go after spectrum to do the job right. An
unused UHF TV channel come to mind immediately. Maybe not the same channel
everywhere in the country, but I would imagine that there is some channel
free no matter where you go. within 100 miles of where I am now, there are
perhaps 20 UHF TV stations. In this particular area we have 16, 22, 28, 38
and 44. I could use any channel in between with little likelyhood for
interference due to the low power necessary and the directionality of the
antenae I would chose to use. Give me channel 33 and I could easily live
with the 24 Mhz of guard band. And then just think how many 9600 baud
channels I could squeeze out of my 6 Mhz channel.
So IMHO the answer lies in setting up a few demo systems using current
commercial allocations where they are available (like around here in NEPA)
and then going back to the government (FCC and DOE) and getting a new service
created whose sole purpose is to support educational networking. Now all I
need is someone who agrees with me to help get things rolling.
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | If this statement wasn't here,
bill@platypus.uofs.edu | This space would be left intentionally blank
bill@tuatara.uofs.edu | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
