Tweet
I was going to put this in the news, but I think R/C would be more appropriate. I was looking for something else when I accidentally found this FCC factsheet from March. Page 5 is rather interesting, but I have no real idea what most of this means.
From page 5:
A. Band Plan
8. In the Fifth Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on the current 4.9 GHz band plan, which divides the band into ten one-megahertz channels (Channels 1–5 and 14–18) and eight five-megahertz channels (Channels 6–13), and limits channel aggregation bandwidth to 20 megahertz.17 The NPSTC Plan proposes to keep this channelization, but recommends aggregating Channels 1–5 into a single 5 megahertz channel designated for air-to-ground communications and robotic use18 and proposes to reduce the current channel aggregation limit from 20 to 10 megahertz.19 The APCO Report proposes no band plan changes but calls for relaxing the 20 megahertz channel aggregation limit, arguing that this would enable the band to accommodate 40 megahertz products that are currently available only outside the U.S.,20 which relaxation could “create a better business case for manufacturers,” and would “provide more options for rural deployments.”21
Any thoughts?
From page 5:
A. Band Plan
8. In the Fifth Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on the current 4.9 GHz band plan, which divides the band into ten one-megahertz channels (Channels 1–5 and 14–18) and eight five-megahertz channels (Channels 6–13), and limits channel aggregation bandwidth to 20 megahertz.17 The NPSTC Plan proposes to keep this channelization, but recommends aggregating Channels 1–5 into a single 5 megahertz channel designated for air-to-ground communications and robotic use18 and proposes to reduce the current channel aggregation limit from 20 to 10 megahertz.19 The APCO Report proposes no band plan changes but calls for relaxing the 20 megahertz channel aggregation limit, arguing that this would enable the band to accommodate 40 megahertz products that are currently available only outside the U.S.,20 which relaxation could “create a better business case for manufacturers,” and would “provide more options for rural deployments.”21
Any thoughts?
Comment