Re: The FCC

actually it is the opposite problem. Everyone blasting at maximum 
wattage is causing the spectrum to be noisy decreasing your range. In 
somewhat clean spectrum, like 2.4gz 3 years ago you could hear an 
omni from 2 miles with a cantenna.

Clean spectrum costs about $150,000 for a 50km range. Fairly cheap if 
you need it. That is what the canopy system uses.  No problems. but 
when there is a sieman's phone blasting at a full watt 24/7 wether it 
is in use or not, your range suffers.


At 10:03 AM -0700 6/22/04, [email protected] wrote:
>I wrote:
>>I know the FCC has good intentions. But they're controlled by congress who
>>routinely exchanges favours for campaign contributions
>
>Marc responded thusly:
>>Dispel that fallacy:
>>They've abandoned their mandate as protector of the spectrum.
>
>Okay, so what's our plan of action?
>
>I know, from my own experience, many of us can provide pretty good free
>Internet access for our close neighbors. What would really help is being
>allowed to boost the power, just a bit.
>
>Our limitation is 4 watts. Cell phone companies regulary blast at 1500 watts.
>
>We need publicize the fact that we could provide low/zero cost
>Internet access for everyone if it were not for the arcane 
>regulatory restictions of
>the FCC.
>
>I'm pretty sure the City of San Fancisco, for example, would stand 
>behind us if we told them
>we could provide a free community service (Internet access) if only 
>we were allowed to increase the power
>of our trancievers by X.
>
>Any thoughts on how to proceed?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>BAWUG's general wireless chat mailing list
>[unsubscribe] http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless


-- 
---------------------------
Never attribute to malice what can more easily be explained by incompetence.
_______________________________________________
BAWUG's general wireless chat mailing list
[unsubscribe] http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless