At 01:33 PM 8/15/03, N6KJ wrote:
>I can certainly understand why there are people out there that are
>frustrated by their inability to get broadband access to their home, BUT
>there is no way you can convince me that polluting the HF radio spectrum
>is the only way to do it! Here's at least 1 example of an alternative.
802.16a is a protocol in search of a spectrum allocation. As such, it's
more likely than not to eventually show up in one or more of the 902 MHz,
2.4 GHz & 5.8 GHz "unlicensed" bands, bands that are "shared" with the
It would be better if we didn't put ourselves in the position of having to
choose between having our HF bands polluted or our having microwave bands
>There are more alternatives being conceived all the time. This just isn't
>necessary. Hopefully, the FCC can be convinced of this.
The FCC is well acquainted with various "last-mile"alternatives
But these days the Commission is philosophically adverse to preemptively
rejecting an alternative simply because it's a really, really bad idea
technically. That would be picking winners and losers; and, as they see it,
that's a bad thing. Far better they feel for investors and consumers to
make the technical choices rather than have them dictated by the govinm'nt.
That's a philosophy I could actually get behind if the FCC were as equally
committed to serving as a fair umpire and enforcing the rules on
Michael Keane K1MK