Gloucester County changes coming

[NESN]

Gloucester County to try to clear the air signal - NJ.com

Will Ocean County be far behind?

The FCC and the radio vendor/salesmen need to pick up the tab on THIS one.

 

[jeff]

It looks like anybody using the 506-509 freqs are complaining and rightfully so about the DTV interference. Burlington is getting quotes for a 700 system. You really don't think the vendor and FCC will pick up this tab??

 

[Skypilot007]

Burlington is getting quotes for a 700 system.

Any kind of time frame as when this might happen? I'm stilll waiting for Camden county to do something.

 

[NESN]

It looks like anybody using the 506-509 freqs are complaining and rightfully so about the DTV interference. Burlington is getting quotes for a 700 system. You really don't think the vendor and FCC will pick up this tab??

I was being facetious, looking for a Moron Tax on whomever designed/authorized these systems in the signal rich Megalopolis between Boston & Washington D.C. We all know who will be picking up this tab.

 

[jeff]

NESN: I know just kidding. Skypilot: I don't think there will be quick movment on this, they just put their last 500 site on line, and I doubt they can get grants like they did before. FYI Bucks will probably go to 700, their 500 system doesn't meet narrow band requirements. I don't know what Ocean is doing, I think they have some 460 freqs authorized.

 

[elias1988]

. I don't know what Ocean is doing, I think they have some 460 freqs authorized.

Ocean County was granted these frequencies back in 2009:

476.31250
476.38750
476.43750
476.48750
476.53750
476.58750
476.71250
476.73750
476.93750
477.26250
478.46250
478.61250

 

[N2ICV]

Why dont the FCC just get the TV stations to move Freq?

 

[fineshot1]

Why dont the FCC just get the TV stations to move Freq?

The fcc media bureau had the perfect opportunity to do so during the DTV transition
but the bone heads did nothing when they had the chance to solve the problem.

That would be expecting too much common sense from our government.

 

[jcardani]

Don't blame the FCC on this.

Read Part 90 Subpart L (authorization in the 470 to 512 MHz band). Public safety users are SECONDARY and must live with the interference from the primary users which are the TV stations. The TV stations are protected from interference from the secondary services (public safety, business, etc) but not vice-versa. This problem should have been known long ago - UHF T-band services started in the late 1970's around here.

 

[jcardani]

Funny these frequencies are still in the UHF-T band, fall under Part 90, subpart L, and will not be protected by any interference from TV stations!

Ocean County was granted these frequencies back in 2009:

476.31250
476.38750
476.43750
476.48750
476.53750
476.58750
476.71250
476.73750
476.93750
477.26250
478.46250
478.61250

 

[fineshot1]

Don't blame the FCC on this.

Read Part 90 Subpart L (authorization in the 470 to 512 MHz band). Public safety users are SECONDARY and must live with the interference from the primary users which are the TV stations. The TV stations are protected from interference from the secondary services (public safety, business, etc) but not vice-versa. This problem should have been known long ago - UHF T-band services started in the late 1970's around here.

Joe - in case you are not aware.

Before allocation of these freqs in this T-band the FCC was supposed to do a worst case
analysis to determine the feasability of TV propogation up & down the coast. This was
supposedly to be done for both the east and west coast scenario's for the markets that
had both TV and public safety sharing spectrum. This was never done. So in this respect
they are responsible for the present and past interference problems to public safety. Had
the proper analysis taken place the FCC would have collected data that would have lead
them to the proper conclusion that the sharing of these two in the same market was not
going to work.

Propogation modeling has and still is a standard procedure before allocating spectrum
in shared markets. This was definately a screw up on the FCC's part but since this happened
so long ago it seems no one remembers or cares.

 

[jcardani]

Hi Fineshot,

I was not aware of this fact. FCC definately dropped the ball here. But still public safety should have known the risks and should have procedures in place to mitigate those risks.

I also am sick of hearing that spending the money to move to 700 MHz will be the end all to this instead of more economical solutions.

BTW my prior email was not directed to you, it was directed to the whole group and the agencies involved.

 

[fineshot1]

Hi Fineshot,

I was not aware of this fact. FCC definately dropped the ball here. But still public safety should have known the risks and should have procedures in place to mitigate those risks.

I also am sick of hearing that spending the money to move to 700 MHz will be the end all to this instead of more economical solutions.

BTW my prior email was not directed to you, it was directed to the whole group and the agencies involved.

Joe - you are correct about "public safety should have known the risks and should have procedures in place to mitigate those risks". Unfortunately all of the public safety agencies that got allocations in the
uhf t band were made to sign wavers in order to get those allocations and I am pretty sure when they
signed those wavers they did not realize that they were signing away any protections and did not
realize the impact of what was to come. The additional 46X.000 and 47X.000 are most likely going
to be used as freq resource alternates until they can come up with either more idea's or a solution
to the DTV interference. I did not take it that you were directing anything towards me - no worries.
I am just trying to spread the word on a little history behind this problem as in this case many of
the actions in the past have lead up to the present scenario.

 

[jeff]

Everything comes in a full circle. I remember back in the '70's when Burlington expanded their VHF system to include freqs used by New York City, and we were told there would be no problems, they're too far way. I was monitoring FDNY long before that.

 

[brscomm]

It's called T-band for a reason. Land mobile use IS secondary to television. As for the FCC dropping the ball, they have done it many times before, most notably with Nextel. Technical is tertiary to monetary and political considerations.