I’m 90% sure most here know, but I don’t see a post about the matter. We have until September to speak up. It may be useless. It may be a done deal, because hams have an actual lobbying body (ARRL) and they don’t seem too hopeful. However the effort should be made regardless.
https://www.reddit.com/r/meshtastic/comments/1ep57o3/fcc_to_modify_900mhz_ism_band/
Quoting Navydevildoc
Also just so everyone understands, NextNav paid for this spectrum back in 2000, ISM and Amateur are secondary users.
What they are trying to propose is instead of the patchwork of frequencies across the country, they want a dedicated nationwide chunk of spectrum for their exclusive use.
It’s anti-competitive and anti-innovation, and not in the best interests of the public at large. Cellular handsets already do a fantastic job of location without GPS using cellular triangulation and WiFi AP MAC tracking. The FAA already has the Minimum Operational Network (MON) for aviation instrument navigation during a GPS outage.
This is a solution looking for a problem.
If you want to file a comment:
The proceeding number is 24-240.
1 Like
This was news to me, so thank you for posting. I just left an official comment, and would advise everyone else who’s reading this to do so now. Takes just 5 minutes. You don’t have to be long-winded or even particularly eloquent, just make your thoughts known respectfully.
1 Like
Is this ‘NextNav’ system mainly promoting itself for indoor location ?
if not what is its purpose, since GPSs work Worldwide outdoors ?
I reading of it, seems to be they promoting it for 3D fixes, what floor of the building, as well as indoors.
… on the basis GPS not that great for altitude - unless there happens to be a sataliate almost directly overhead.
Not sure, but guess it means must have to deploy at least a couple of local ‘fixed’ stations, that can cross reference GPS to get ‘absolute’ positions. Rather than just relative locations between mobile points.
Well for indoors you would need to use significant amounts of RF power, which in turn would leak outside and could wipe out the band 900Mhz over (very?) large outdoor areas.
Yes, i think that one of the main objections,
Even if there would be frequencies available in the reduced ISM band for meshtastic etc, they would be bracketed by high power usage, with significant risk of interferance
Found in the amendment says
• Align the power limits with those that typically apply to Part 27 operations (1000 W/MHz
ERP (1640 W/MHz EIRP) in densely populated counties and 2000 W/MHz (3280 W/MHz
EIRP) in counties with 100 or fewer people per square mile);
… not sure exactly how to convert those units, but does seem high power, 60db+
… ECFS && ECFS
Not sure if this link will work… ECFS)&sort=date_disseminated,ASC ECFS
1 Like
it’s funny because it’s true.