May Inbox
Saturday, May 01, 2010 | Comments
Following are comments we’ve received from readers about recent online and print news and articles. If you’d like to comment on an article, e-mail edit@RRMediaGroup.com.
 
In response to “Chairman Addresses Narrowbanding Concerns” on May 25
 
Editor:
Rep. Candice Miller should be commended. This is just another FCC "we can't admit we made a mistake.” Nothing significant in new frequencies will happen until 6.25-kilohertz digital. The user gets nothing; a political intervention is all that will stop this. The FCC just doesn’t care whose money they waste.
 
Bob Bauer
 

 
In response to “Chairman Addresses Narrowbanding Concerns” on May 25
 
Editor:
I find it almost comical that Rep. Candice Miller should be so concerned about migration to 12.5-kilohertz narrowbanding. She’s a Michigan Congresswoman, a sate that is probably 80 percent on 800 MHz for public safety and thus exempted from the narrowbanding rules. She should be more concerned that the statewide system uses proprietary trunking that is not only ridiculously expensive but also, in reality, locks the state and all it’s participants into just one vendor, Motorola. EF Johnson is a second supplier, in name only. Apparently Congresswoman Miller has idle time on her hands.
 
Scott Adams
Adams Electronics
Wixom, Mich.
 

 
In response to “Watch for Interference from DTV Translators” in the May print issue
 
Editor:
Thanks to MissionCritical Communications and Ralph Haller for a nice article. To many in the communications world, the enforcement actions of the FCC are a glorious past. Without knowledge of enforcement actions, the rules are nice pieces of paper for good people to follow and the less than good to ignore. Please do this more often so we can see the policeman of the spectrum has more than a feared and glorious past.
 
Leonard Koehnen
Consulting Engineer
Saint Paul, Minn.
 

 
In response to “Inbox: Reader Feedback
 
Editor:
Regarding Motorola’s response to the narrowbanding question, can we get this on official Motorola letterhead? I have many public-safety clients who have calendar year budgets. They have spent their 2010 monies for new radios but their fleet is not yet completely narrowband capable. Because of this, they can’t narrowband until 2012. They have monies in the 2011 budget to complete their fleet. I have been telling them to try to order late in 2010 for receipt before Dec. 31, to preserve the wideband operability of their fleet. This poses legal issues for them of obligating unencumbered monies.
 
If this statement from Motorola is true, then it will provide them some relief. It would be nice if the FCC would offer a pathway through the disconnect between the last date for new wideband radios and the mandatory cutover date. Why not make the radio change and the narrowband mandate both on Jan. 1, 2013?
 
Leonard Koehnen
Consulting Engineer
Saint Paul, Minn    
 

 
 
Editor:
 
Motorola isn't doing this to solve end user problems. Motorola is doing this strictly from a business standpoint: They only low cost repeater, the RPU2160, utilizes 15 MHz Tx/Rx offsets. It currently runs at two watts and is licensed as a mobile, skirting the requirements that craft usage of higher power, higher antenna heights. This unit, when produced in higher power might make Motorola price competitive in the stand alone analog repeater market, which it currently is not. Intermodulation problems have a number of easily obtainable solutions and don't require confusing the band plan, which, if the Motorola petition is granted, would do.
 
Vote no!
 
Scott Adams
ADAMS ELECTRONICS COMPANY
Wixom, MI
 

 
Click here for the April 2010 Inbox.
Click here for the March 2010 Inbox.
 


 
 
Post a comment
Name: *
Email: *
Title: *
Comment: *
 

Comments

No Comments Submitted Yet

Be the first by using the form above to submit a comment!

Site Navigation

Close