Alternate migration option offered
Canada
I read with interest, Mr. M.L. Joyner’s letter on the migrating of the lower 12 VHF TV channels out of the VHF band and into UHF.
I can not and do not pretend to speak for my employer, but I personally agree with Joyner’s idea.
I do not think, however, that starting with channel 2 will give the best “bang for the buck.” If we begin with channel 7, at 174 MHZ, we can extend the VHF hi-band up by 6 MHZ jumps.
In most cases a slight retooling/retuning by the manufacturers will result in equipment which will meet new federal regulations at a minimum cost especially for channel 7 and perhaps even channel 8. In theory this would allow an expedited move of channel 7. By the time all the necessary regulations are in place to move TV channel 8, manufacturers would be ready to produce the new equipment.
I also believe that the first allocation of these new available VHF frequencies should be to public safety. To do so would allow a national standard frequency band for public safety , both in your country and mine, Canada. Right now, I am not aware of an allocation of spectrum for Public Safety only, in the VHF band in Canada. Believe it or not, however, there is one for the railroads.
To my mind VHF would be the band of choice for public safety. Agreed, there are filtering concerns with multiple transmitter sites but the extra frequencies gained by the movement of the TV channels would more than offset any problems. VHF gives great coverage in rough terrain and the better building penetration of UHF is more than offset by the reduced number of repeater sites required at VHF for the same level of coverage.
Being from Canada, I can not be aware of all the rules governing your country’s use of frequencies and I am only offering an opinion on what I see as a definite improvement in both our countries ability to protect its citizens. Thanks for your time
John Greenland c/m
Division Technical Coordinator
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
“B” Division
Fauquier County revisited
Berkeley, CA
I am sending this email in response to the (June letter) article by George Tolis. While I cannot comment on the specifics of the Fauquier County project, he made some misleading and/or incorrect statements at the end of the article with regard to realignment of the 800 MHz band that need to be corrected:
-
The current leading proposal for realignment of the band, supported by NEXTEL and the major public safety organizations, will not require ANY public safety agency to relocate unless the costs of such a relocation are fully covered by non-public funds.
-
There is no “accepted certainty” that public safety agencies will have to move. In fact, all of the proposals now before the commission leave some of the current frequency assignments intact. To my knowledge the major proposals are all still being considered by the FCC.
-
There is no current proposal for a multi-phase move that would eventually relocate public safety agencies to the 700 MHz band, thus obsoleting all existing public safety 800 MHz equipment. Both of the leading proposals now before the FCC leave all of the incumbent 800 licensees in that band where current equipment can be re-tuned. Public safety needs all of its current 800 MHz spectrum block in addition to the new spectrum that will eventually be available at 700 MHz once television stations have been moved from that spectrum; public safety would actively campaign against any proposal that reduces its overall spectrum allocations.
The 800 MHz relocation proceeding is at a critical point, and such misinformation can negatively impact the current leading public safety position if public safety agencies express disapproval of the public safety/NEXTEL relocation proposal to the FCC based upon incorrect information from articles such as this.
John Powell
Chair
NCC Interoperability Subcommittee
800 MHz: For your consideration
Olympia, WA
Your article has substantial value to those of us in the field.
I’d like to add this for your consideration:
The reason there isn’t a large amount of listed APCO Interference complaints, is that every time this kind of a request is made upon public safety — it creates a need for funding. I am confident there are many more unlisted Interference situations not being addressed.
Funding is a processes requiring more time to secure in these troubled times, and is generally not available.
Simply put, the problem of identifying the scope of the Interference out there is such magnitude as to require in my estimate nationally more like billions of dollars to solve.
Harlan D. Ohlson
Communications systems manager
Radio Operations
WSDOT
Interference question remains potential disaster
Southern California
I just finished reading your article “Motorola Drops 800 Mhz Bomb” in the June 2003 issue of Mobile Radio Tehcnology.
What an outstanding look at the unfolding of an unnatural disaster in the making. As a Motorola customer, I believe that Motorola has, in fact, depicted a much clearer picture of the interference problem than Nextel would have us believe.
The question that struck me across the face is, “since when is public safety the only users of the 800 Mhz band?” Since we installed our 800 Mhz Motorola SmartZone system covering 6,000 square miles of southern California I have investigated two incidents involving Nextel interference to a public utility.
Yes, Bill, just because your name does not start with “City of”, “County of” or “State of” does not mean that you can not possibly be suffering the hardships of interference just the same.
Keep up the good work, everything you write gives me something new to ponder.
Rory Bowers
SZ System Administrator
Imperial Irrigation District
Power Dept. — Communications Section
Letters policy
Mobile Radio Technology welcomes all comments, suggestions and complaints.
Send them to [email protected].
We reserve the right to edit for spelling and grammar, length, and libelous or inappropriate material.
Please include a phone number so we can confirm authenticity.
We also reserve the right to respond when appropriate.
