cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: Control
I agree. It doesn't surprise me that a company, that wants to stay profitable, doesn't bid on the D block with the condition that a they build a network that they will probably see no profit from.
It almost seems like a better option would be to combine the C and D blocks into one block/auction with the requirement that all stations (assuming that the infrastructure is similar to TV and cell phone system-big central towers) are capable of both C and D block frequency operation with a special set of frequencies set aside for the emergency usage only. At least with this method, the idea they have for D-block would get implemented. |
|
rec9140
Provoice just DO it
join:2003-07-29
Mulberry, FL
| said by cornelius785  :
requirement that all stations (assuming that the infrastructure is similar to TV and cell phone system-big central towers)
TV transmission via a single tower and
cell phone transmission via multiple "cells" are not even remotely similar.
A TV station can be putting out an ERP in the MEGA watts or MILLIONS of watts
A cell phone tower is nowhere even close to that kind of ERP.
The whole concept of cellular phones is to cellularize them to allow frequency reuse and increased capacity v. say the old IMTS system.
The only part of TV transmission that is similar to celluar would be TV translators which are lower powered fill in towers some on the same channel as the originator other times on different channels. For the most part TV has a single very high powered and high tower 1000+ feet and cellular may have 50-60 towers upto 200-300 feet for the same coverage area. A single tower in most cases is not neccessarily a single cell. Sectorization of towers allows 3 or more "cells" to be on a single tower.
--
Ban all copyright, trademarks, and IP laws!//Lorem ipsum ei pro stet equidem labores, at enim animal expetenda nec. Ea vix argumentum dissentiunt, usu esse ridens ex. |
|
