Here is a link to the frequency allocation chart that I like to reference.:

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

Keep in mind, the veritcal scale is log.  The amount of bandwidth in Hz
of a given block increases rapidly as you go down the chart. You'll see
the typical mobile wireless bands at 800-900 MHz, 1.9-2.4 GHz, and
scattered throughout the higher bands. Also, to lowest part of the chart
isn't a very usable set of frequencies. The channel characteristics
aren't very desirable.

I'm aware of a few proposals "on the table" to reorganize the
allocation. I'm sure more reliable information can be found on the FCC's
web site.

The spectrum simply *MUST* be managed, and it must evolve. I do not envy
those who must make the _informed_ decisions on how it's done.

Hz for Hz, broadcast services aren't taking up much space at all.

Brad

Ben McCafferty wrote:

>Recently read an interesting article on the use of wireless bandwidth in the
>US, and it's pretty crazy.  For interested parties, it was in Forbes
>(http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2002/1125/138.html and you need to register to
>access the article).  Basically, the FCC has a stranglehold on frequencies,
>and are still letting archaic technologies have the airwaves here.  For
>example, one of the largest usable segments is consumed for broadcast TV (11
>million users), though 88% of the country's viewers use cable or satellite.
>Meanwhile, tremendous cell traffic (137 million users) is being forced into
>a segment of frequencies half as large as broadcast TV enjoys, which is
>really the reason we have such poor cell service in the US.  Very
>interesting article re: fat cat-ism, etc.
>bmc  :)
>Ben McCafferty
>ben@volkscafe.com
>
>Volks Cafe
>1823 Soquel Avenue
>Santa Cruz, CA  95062
>831-426-1244
>http://www.volkscafe.com
>
>
>
>
>>From: David Brodbeck <gull@CYBERSPACE.ORG>
>>Reply-To: David Brodbeck <gull@CYBERSPACE.ORG>
>>Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:00:58 -0500
>>To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>>Subject: Re: Fast German will fix the broken rebuild / Fix?
>>
>>On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, David Beierl wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>At 02:37 AM 1/17/2003, zampano wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>How come cell phones still are horribly
>>>>unreliable all over the U.S?? When I could use them in Italy,
>>>>Switzerland and Germany 8 years ago on mountain peaks, valleys, subway
>>>>stations, anywhere except tunnels???
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Have you compared the sizes?  Germany for example, has a helicopter/trauma
>>>center setup that can get people to a trauma center from anywhere in the
>>>country in fifteen minutes.  This is great, but they have only about
>>>one-eighth the land mass per inhabitant (230/km^2 vs 27/km^2 ten or fifteen
>>>years ago)
>>>
>>>
>>That's part of it, but another major difference is that Europe
>>standardized on one digital cell phone standard.  In the U.S., there
>>wasn't the political will to do this, so we have three completely
>>incompatible phone networks.  For everyone to get reliable service the
>>whole country has to be covered in triplicate!  This is one case where a
>>little more government intervention would have benefited everyone.
>>
>>_ _
>>__ _ _   _| | |  | David M. Brodbeck (N8SRE)              Ypsilanti, MI
>>/ _` | | | | | |  +-----------------------------------------------------
>>| (_| | |_| | | | @ cyberspace.org
>>\__, |\__,_|_|_| "To the optimist, the glass is half full.  To the
>>|___/             pessimist, the glass is half empty.  To the engineer,
>>the glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
>>
>>
>
>
>