Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation']

[Jeromie Reeves]

I think the key would be that these portable devices require a AP to
talk to, and that AP's be limited as licensed devices (like 3650). The
protocol would need to be setup so that they do not talk unless they
can hear a AP (and handshake a stable link). This is my opinion of the
best middle ground (unlicensed vs portable devices vs fixed point
wireless). I also agree in splitting the band so you have group A (out
door fixed wireless), group B (short range, say 1000ft link). This
would allow CPE to be designed from the ground up as node devices.
Does this seam reasonable?

On 1/18/08, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have mixed thoughts about backing any stand that is for allowing portable
> devices in this spectrum. I deal (daily) in a trash hole of spectrum because
> of these very same "portable" devices. What do you Wireless Internet Service
> Providers want anyway? Do you want spectrum that is fit to be used to
> deliver quality broadband at higher rates of data transfer, better coverage
> areas, spectrum that cuts the foliage like butter with a super low noise
> floor that is allocated and kept up with by the FCC via their ULS site? - OR
> - do you want to share the spectrum with every device known to China, Korea,
> Japan and the USA as we fight (like we do today) to find a clean channel to
> pass a few megs on?
>
>  I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I joined WISPA to allow WISPA
> beat the drums in DC for WISPs across the USA. I joined WISPA with the hope
> that we will eventually get some spectrum that is fit to use without paying
> $2.2 million for the rights to it. WISPA is IMHO just what it says -
> WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION. I think we ought to go for
> what is best for us as a whole. We don't have to alienate anyone and I would
> suggest we do just the opposite - -befriend these guys, but be true to
> thyself and thy industry first! I'm not ready to act like a politician and
> throw out the baby with the wash water. I believe that we will eventually
> get what we ask for - if we are persistent. Aligning ourselves beside the
> "newly formed" (less than a month old) WIA is not going to hurt us if we
> don't, but would absolutely give the WIA the clout to say they have all the
> WISDPS supporting their stand - - and believe it or not guys - - DC hears us
> loud and clear! There are FCC commissioners who know us by name, who we are,
> what we are doing and what we are looking for out of them - let's keep the
> bathwater warm and the baby in it.
>
>  This is not the first time we have had to make a decision along these lines
> and it won't be the last. Common ground is easily found and agreed upon
> without swallowing the hook, line and sinker along with a dab of bait. There
> are many issues that we could agree on/support with WIA - I am sure.
>
> One thing is for sure: If you support the newly formed WIA's stance on
> utilizing TVWHITESPACE for personal portable devices you can look forward to
> a ripped spectrum like we have now where we are all trying to make a living.
> The WIA is comprised of companies like Microsoft, HP (delivering just what
> we need - every printer will be spewing whitespace noise like they do in 2.4
> now) Dell (same thing) Google with their phones and little gadgets and
> millions more.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mac Dearman
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:18 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> > space'misinformation']
> >
> > Sascha's got a good point.
> >
> > So the question is If WISPA alienates groups lobbying for Public
> > portable devices, Who all would still be allies with WISPA to fight for
> > open
> > access to it?
> >
> > Sascha infers, not many. What does WISPA think? As much as I respect
> > how
> > much WISPA has done so far to fight for the rights in 700, my personal
> > opinion is WISPA does not have enough mucsle on its won to cause
> > effective
> > result.  WISPA needs allies.  Everyone I can think of that would be an
> > allie, would want portable devices, except other WISPs.
> >
> > I truly hate this. It makes us chose between either "sound technical
> > theory", versus "Politics", that otherwise might leave us empty handed.
> > But
> > that might be reality.
> >
> > I agree with Marlon, that with personal portable devices allowed, I
> > don't
> > see how it could ever work out to be effectively used by Fixed
> > Broadband
> > providers.
> > But, maybe a better use for it, is for Portable devices, to give the
> > Telcos
> > some real competition, and WISPs would just need to modify their
> > business
> > model to benefit from it?
> >
> > Tom DeReggi
> > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Sascha Meinrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation']

[Jeromie Reeves]

On 1/18/08, Mac Dearman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have mixed thoughts about backing any stand that is for allowing portable
> devices in this spectrum. I deal (daily) in a trash hole of spectrum because
> of these very same "portable" devices. What do you Wireless Internet Service
> Providers want anyway? Do you want spectrum that is fit to be used to
> deliver quality broadband at higher rates of data transfer, better coverage
> areas, spectrum that cuts the foliage like butter with a super low noise
> floor that is allocated and kept up with by the FCC via their ULS site? - OR
> - do you want to share the spectrum with every device known to China, Korea,
> Japan and the USA as we fight (like we do today) to find a clean channel to
> pass a few megs on?
>
>  I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I joined WISPA to allow WISPA
> beat the drums in DC for WISPs across the USA. I joined WISPA with the hope
> that we will eventually get some spectrum that is fit to use without paying
> $2.2 million for the rights to it. WISPA is IMHO just what it says -
> WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION. I think we ought to go for
> what is best for us as a whole. We don't have to alienate anyone and I would
> suggest we do just the opposite - -befriend these guys, but be true to
> thyself and thy industry first! I'm not ready to act like a politician and
> throw out the baby with the wash water. I believe that we will eventually
> get what we ask for - if we are persistent. Aligning ourselves beside the
> "newly formed" (less than a month old) WIA is not going to hurt us if we
> don't, but would absolutely give the WIA the clout to say they have all the
> WISDPS supporting their stand - - and believe it or not guys - - DC hears us
> loud and clear! There are FCC commissioners who know us by name, who we are,
> what we are doing and what we are looking for out of them - let's keep the
> bathwater warm and the baby in it.
>
>  This is not the first time we have had to make a decision along these lines
> and it won't be the last. Common ground is easily found and agreed upon
> without swallowing the hook, line and sinker along with a dab of bait. There
> are many issues that we could agree on/support with WIA - I am sure.
>
> One thing is for sure: If you support the newly formed WIA's stance on
> utilizing TVWHITESPACE for personal portable devices you can look forward to
> a ripped spectrum like we have now where we are all trying to make a living.
> The WIA is comprised of companies like Microsoft, HP (delivering just what
> we need - every printer will be spewing whitespace noise like they do in 2.4
> now) Dell (same thing) Google with their phones and little gadgets and
> millions more.
>
> Sincerely,
> Mac Dearman
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:18 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> > space'misinformation']
> >
> > Sascha's got a good point.
> >
> > So the question is If WISPA alienates groups lobbying for Public
> > portable devices, Who all would still be allies with WISPA to fight for
> > open
> > access to it?
> >
> > Sascha infers, not many. What does WISPA think? As much as I respect
> > how
> > much WISPA has done so far to fight for the rights in 700, my personal
> > opinion is WISPA does not have enough mucsle on its won to cause
> > effective
> > result.  WISPA needs allies.  Everyone I can think of that would be an
> > allie, would want portable devices, except other WISPs.
> >
> > I truly hate this. It makes us chose between either "sound technical
> > theory", versus "Politics", that otherwise might leave us empty handed.
> > But
> > that might be reality.
> >
> > I agree with Marlon, that with personal portable devices allowed, I
> > don't
> > see how it could ever work out to be effectively used by Fixed
> > Broadband
> > providers.
> > But, maybe a better use for it, is for Portable devices, to give the
> > Telcos
> > some real competition, and WISPs would just need to modify their
> > business
> > model to benefit from it?
> >
> > Tom DeReggi
> > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Sascha Meinrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: 
> > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:14 PM
> > Subject: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> > space'misinformation']
> >
> >
> > > Hi everyone,
> > >
> > >> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:54 -0800
> > >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
> > >> 'misinformation'
> > >> To: "WISPA General List" 
> > >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >>
> > >> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
> > discussion
> > >> focused on finding common ground between them

Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation']

[Mac Dearman]

I have mixed thoughts about backing any stand that is for allowing portable
devices in this spectrum. I deal (daily) in a trash hole of spectrum because
of these very same "portable" devices. What do you Wireless Internet Service
Providers want anyway? Do you want spectrum that is fit to be used to
deliver quality broadband at higher rates of data transfer, better coverage
areas, spectrum that cuts the foliage like butter with a super low noise
floor that is allocated and kept up with by the FCC via their ULS site? - OR
- do you want to share the spectrum with every device known to China, Korea,
Japan and the USA as we fight (like we do today) to find a clean channel to
pass a few megs on?

 I don't know how the rest of you feel, but I joined WISPA to allow WISPA
beat the drums in DC for WISPs across the USA. I joined WISPA with the hope
that we will eventually get some spectrum that is fit to use without paying
$2.2 million for the rights to it. WISPA is IMHO just what it says -
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION. I think we ought to go for
what is best for us as a whole. We don't have to alienate anyone and I would
suggest we do just the opposite - -befriend these guys, but be true to
thyself and thy industry first! I'm not ready to act like a politician and
throw out the baby with the wash water. I believe that we will eventually
get what we ask for - if we are persistent. Aligning ourselves beside the
"newly formed" (less than a month old) WIA is not going to hurt us if we
don't, but would absolutely give the WIA the clout to say they have all the
WISDPS supporting their stand - - and believe it or not guys - - DC hears us
loud and clear! There are FCC commissioners who know us by name, who we are,
what we are doing and what we are looking for out of them - let's keep the
bathwater warm and the baby in it.

 This is not the first time we have had to make a decision along these lines
and it won't be the last. Common ground is easily found and agreed upon
without swallowing the hook, line and sinker along with a dab of bait. There
are many issues that we could agree on/support with WIA - I am sure.

One thing is for sure: If you support the newly formed WIA's stance on
utilizing TVWHITESPACE for personal portable devices you can look forward to
a ripped spectrum like we have now where we are all trying to make a living.
The WIA is comprised of companies like Microsoft, HP (delivering just what
we need - every printer will be spewing whitespace noise like they do in 2.4
now) Dell (same thing) Google with their phones and little gadgets and
millions more.

Sincerely,
Mac Dearman






> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 4:18 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> space'misinformation']
> 
> Sascha's got a good point.
> 
> So the question is If WISPA alienates groups lobbying for Public
> portable devices, Who all would still be allies with WISPA to fight for
> open
> access to it?
> 
> Sascha infers, not many. What does WISPA think? As much as I respect
> how
> much WISPA has done so far to fight for the rights in 700, my personal
> opinion is WISPA does not have enough mucsle on its won to cause
> effective
> result.  WISPA needs allies.  Everyone I can think of that would be an
> allie, would want portable devices, except other WISPs.
> 
> I truly hate this. It makes us chose between either "sound technical
> theory", versus "Politics", that otherwise might leave us empty handed.
> But
> that might be reality.
> 
> I agree with Marlon, that with personal portable devices allowed, I
> don't
> see how it could ever work out to be effectively used by Fixed
> Broadband
> providers.
> But, maybe a better use for it, is for Portable devices, to give the
> Telcos
> some real competition, and WISPs would just need to modify their
> business
> model to benefit from it?
> 
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
> 
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: "Sascha Meinrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:14 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> space'misinformation']
> 
> 
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> >> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:54 -0800
> >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
> >> 'misinformation'
> >> To: "WISPA General List" 
> >> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
> discussion
> >> focused on finding common ground between them and us.
> >>
> >> It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep
> personal
> >> portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at first
> (really
> >> forever as far as I'm concerned).
> >>
> >> Anyone have a problem with that as

Re: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation']

[Tom DeReggi]

Sascha's got a good point.

So the question is If WISPA alienates groups lobbying for Public 
portable devices, Who all would still be allies with WISPA to fight for open 
access to it?

Sascha infers, not many. What does WISPA think? As much as I respect how 
much WISPA has done so far to fight for the rights in 700, my personal 
opinion is WISPA does not have enough mucsle on its won to cause effective 
result.  WISPA needs allies.  Everyone I can think of that would be an 
allie, would want portable devices, except other WISPs.

I truly hate this. It makes us chose between either "sound technical 
theory", versus "Politics", that otherwise might leave us empty handed.  But 
that might be reality.

I agree with Marlon, that with personal portable devices allowed, I don't 
see how it could ever work out to be effectively used by Fixed Broadband 
providers.
But, maybe a better use for it, is for Portable devices, to give the Telcos 
some real competition, and WISPs would just need to modify their business 
model to benefit from it?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Sascha Meinrath" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:14 PM
Subject: [WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white 
space'misinformation']


> Hi everyone,
>
>> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:54 -0800
>> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
>> 'misinformation'
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a discussion
>> focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>>
>> It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep personal
>> portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at first (really
>> forever as far as I'm concerned).
>>
>> Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
>> marlon
>
> I'm all for firm stands, but not for self-destructive ones.  Having been 
> working
> on white space devices since 2004 and been here in DC working daily on the 
> issue
> since last August, I can tell you that what Marlon is proposing would play
> directly into the hands of the same telcos that would love to eliminate
> competition from folks like independent WISPs.
>
> NAB doesn't want _any_ unlicensed devices -- whether portable or fixed --
> they're interested solely in a) no access to this spectrum and b) licensed
> access if the first notion fails.  If you jettison unlicensed portable 
> devices
> you will lose the political support of both the industry players as well 
> as the
> public interest community working to open this spectrum.  At which point 
> you'll
> have WISPA fighting against NAB (who'll then go to the telcos and say 
> "Hey, you
> can have regional and/or national spectrum access if you join our side").
> Unlicensed portable WSDs might not be the optimal solution for WISPA 
> (though I
> think that's debatable), but access to this spectrum would be a huge boon 
> to
> WISPs across the country.  What's being proposed would put WISPA on the 
> wrong
> side of this battle, hurt our chances to get _any_ access to the spectrum, 
> and
> may inadvertently end up harming WISPA members.
>
> This is an incredibly complex political issue; more importantly, WSDs are 
> built
> to be spectrum-aware, which means that a lot of the messiness we've seen 
> in
> 802.11 will be alleviated -- keep in mind we're also talking about a huge 
> swath
> a spectrum with propagation characteristics that are quite different from 
> 2.4
> and 5GHz.  I'm just worried that WISPA is about to weigh in on something 
> without
> doing the necessary due diligence to know the ramifications of these 
> actions.
> In the meantime, I would encourage folks who are interested in learning 
> about
> WSDs to read New America Foundation's policy backgrounder:
>
> http://www.newamerica.net/files/WhiteSpaceDevicesBackgrounder120607.pdf
>
> In solidarity,
>
> --Sascha
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

* Tom DeReggi wrote, On 1/18/2008 1:10 PM:

what it looks like many are going to do in order to get a greater number of
subs per tower, at $10k+ per radio they will have to



Nope. The manufacturers will have to lower their price per AP.

  

2.4Ghz can go way up to 50 Watts EIRP, where the clients under
3.65Ghz are limited to 1 Watt max.


mobile radios are limited to 1W; fixed/bases are 25W

leon


That is a surprise to me. 3.6G was pitched as a PtP for rural in its early 
discussions, meaning a 25watt link between to points, meaning 25watts per 
side.

Did the rules change?

Are you saying manufacturers are putting out CPEs limited to 1 watt EIRP. Or 
are you saying the rules limit CPE to 1 watt EIRP.
I was not under the impression CPEs were limited to 1 watt by FCC rules, if 
thats the case the band would be as worthless as 5.3Gz-5.4Ghz.


  

What makes 3.65Ghz better overall is the
low noise floors,



Yes, but only a temporary advantage.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service


Guys

I keep hearing people say 3.65Ghz has more power than 2.4Ghz, I guess I can
see this over all with 25Watt total but because of how the rules are written
this is not the case.  The base station in Wimax is 7 Watts EIRP max if you
use the larger channel size, and less if you use the smaller ones which is
what it looks like many are going to do in order to get a greater number of
subs per tower, at $10k+ per radio they will have to! Anyway this puts the
EIRP at about 3.5 Watts EIRP which is about what 2.4Ghz can do.  On the
client side   What makes 3.65Ghz better overall is the
low noise floors, non-exclusive license and a central database so you know
when and where new base stations are installed! Because of this I don't see
how there will be an issues for WISP as long as all the rules are followed,
which they must by law, another good thing :)

Sincerely, Tony Morella
Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
http://www.demarctech.com

This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of
this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone
other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the
confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all
copies of this communication


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service

  

It's only practical implementation is a dense urban environment with low
throughput



I have a very hard time accepting that comment.

3.650 is more power than other unlicenced.
3.650 has better RF characteristics than 5.8G for NLOS and Distance.
Possibly even better than 2.4G (up for debate, based on average size of pine

needles and leafs).
Any time there is a capabilty to serve MANY such as in an Urban area, of
course its also possible to serve a LOWER number of people typical or
subburb or rural.

If you are trying to say, 3.6 Wimax is not a replacement for 900Mhz to
tackle foliage, I 100% agree.
If you say, NLOS is not possible long range, I fully agree, but neither is
any other technology.
If you say, smaller channels will mean lower throughpout for multi-sector
designs, I'd agree with you.

But 3.6G was designed for Rural. Thats why it has higher power levels.
And WiMax was designed for typical cell distances of existing legacy
unlicened gear.

If anything it could be argued that WIMax is Better in rural areas because
it does not have the contention protocols needed to deal with many
interference sources typical of Urban america, and Wimax dies in
interference.

Wimax 3.6G, is as rural as any other product, and smart urban WISPs will
also do their best to use it. Personally, even if its one 20Mhz sector, its
one more sector that can be added to the tower.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service


  

I would like to note that Redline echoed my thoughts on 3.65 GHz.  It is
not
for rural providers and is not for high bandwidth providers.  It's on

[WISPA] [Fwd: Re: Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation']

[Sascha Meinrath]

Hi everyone,

> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:54 -0800
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
> 'misinformation'
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a discussion
> focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>
> It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep personal
> portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at first (really
> forever as far as I'm concerned).
>
> Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
> marlon

I'm all for firm stands, but not for self-destructive ones.  Having been working
on white space devices since 2004 and been here in DC working daily on the issue
since last August, I can tell you that what Marlon is proposing would play
directly into the hands of the same telcos that would love to eliminate
competition from folks like independent WISPs.

NAB doesn't want _any_ unlicensed devices -- whether portable or fixed --
they're interested solely in a) no access to this spectrum and b) licensed
access if the first notion fails.  If you jettison unlicensed portable devices
you will lose the political support of both the industry players as well as the
public interest community working to open this spectrum.  At which point you'll
have WISPA fighting against NAB (who'll then go to the telcos and say "Hey, you
can have regional and/or national spectrum access if you join our side").
Unlicensed portable WSDs might not be the optimal solution for WISPA (though I
think that's debatable), but access to this spectrum would be a huge boon to
WISPs across the country.  What's being proposed would put WISPA on the wrong
side of this battle, hurt our chances to get _any_ access to the spectrum, and
may inadvertently end up harming WISPA members.

This is an incredibly complex political issue; more importantly, WSDs are built
to be spectrum-aware, which means that a lot of the messiness we've seen in
802.11 will be alleviated -- keep in mind we're also talking about a huge swath
a spectrum with propagation characteristics that are quite different from 2.4
and 5GHz.  I'm just worried that WISPA is about to weigh in on something without
doing the necessary due diligence to know the ramifications of these actions.
In the meantime, I would encourage folks who are interested in learning about
WSDs to read New America Foundation's policy backgrounder:

http://www.newamerica.net/files/WhiteSpaceDevicesBackgrounder120607.pdf

In solidarity,

--Sascha






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service

[tonylist]

Tom

You are calling the Wimax base station an AP, this is not the case they are
true base stations with a large amount of R&D behind them plus most are
licensing code which adds a great deal of cost. I do not think you are going
to see Wimax base stations anywhere near what WISP are used to doing, ever.

This is correct for PtP 25 Watts max EIRP for 3.65Ghz,  but you can do this
now and much more with 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz so the power is not the plus. The
plus is that each side of the PtP link must be listed in the central FCC
database so a WISP will know where all the APs are and can make sure not to
cause issues with each other which is what they must do by law.

Any 3.65Ghz that is not listed in the central FCC database is limited to 1
Watt EIRP. But because the noise floor is low your single to noise should be
descent in more locations.  

Which goes to the last point, this is NOT 2.4Ghz under part-15. 3.65Ghz is
under part-90 which means all WISP MUST obey the law of the FCC or they will
be forced to take down there equipment and fined for any issues. Also there
is never going to be as must 3.65Ghz equipment out there and no of it will
be AMP to all hell and way over FCC limits. Which means there will be very
little "extra" power creating a every higher noise floor. 

Comments? 

Sincerely, Tony Morella
Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
http://www.demarctech.com 
 
This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of
this message. This communication may contain  confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone
other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the
confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all
copies of this communication


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:11 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service

>what it looks like many are going to do in order to get a greater number of
>subs per tower, at $10k+ per radio they will have to

Nope. The manufacturers will have to lower their price per AP.

>2.4Ghz can go way up to 50 Watts EIRP, where the clients under
>3.65Ghz are limited to 1 Watt max.

That is a surprise to me. 3.6G was pitched as a PtP for rural in its early 
discussions, meaning a 25watt link between to points, meaning 25watts per 
side.
Did the rules change?

Are you saying manufacturers are putting out CPEs limited to 1 watt EIRP. Or

are you saying the rules limit CPE to 1 watt EIRP.
I was not under the impression CPEs were limited to 1 watt by FCC rules, if 
thats the case the band would be as worthless as 5.3Gz-5.4Ghz.

>What makes 3.65Ghz better overall is the
> low noise floors,

Yes, but only a temporary advantage.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service


Guys

I keep hearing people say 3.65Ghz has more power than 2.4Ghz, I guess I can
see this over all with 25Watt total but because of how the rules are written
this is not the case.  The base station in Wimax is 7 Watts EIRP max if you
use the larger channel size, and less if you use the smaller ones which is
what it looks like many are going to do in order to get a greater number of
subs per tower, at $10k+ per radio they will have to! Anyway this puts the
EIRP at about 3.5 Watts EIRP which is about what 2.4Ghz can do.  On the
client side   What makes 3.65Ghz better overall is the
low noise floors, non-exclusive license and a central database so you know
when and where new base stations are installed! Because of this I don't see
how there will be an issues for WISP as long as all the rules are followed,
which they must by law, another good thing :)

Sincerely, Tony Morella
Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
http://www.demarctech.com

This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of
this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone
other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the
confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or
d

Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service

[Tom DeReggi]

>what it looks like many are going to do in order to get a greater number of
>subs per tower, at $10k+ per radio they will have to

Nope. The manufacturers will have to lower their price per AP.

>2.4Ghz can go way up to 50 Watts EIRP, where the clients under
>3.65Ghz are limited to 1 Watt max.

That is a surprise to me. 3.6G was pitched as a PtP for rural in its early 
discussions, meaning a 25watt link between to points, meaning 25watts per 
side.
Did the rules change?

Are you saying manufacturers are putting out CPEs limited to 1 watt EIRP. Or 
are you saying the rules limit CPE to 1 watt EIRP.
I was not under the impression CPEs were limited to 1 watt by FCC rules, if 
thats the case the band would be as worthless as 5.3Gz-5.4Ghz.

>What makes 3.65Ghz better overall is the
> low noise floors,

Yes, but only a temporary advantage.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New Wimax Service


Guys

I keep hearing people say 3.65Ghz has more power than 2.4Ghz, I guess I can
see this over all with 25Watt total but because of how the rules are written
this is not the case.  The base station in Wimax is 7 Watts EIRP max if you
use the larger channel size, and less if you use the smaller ones which is
what it looks like many are going to do in order to get a greater number of
subs per tower, at $10k+ per radio they will have to! Anyway this puts the
EIRP at about 3.5 Watts EIRP which is about what 2.4Ghz can do.  On the
client side   What makes 3.65Ghz better overall is the
low noise floors, non-exclusive license and a central database so you know
when and where new base stations are installed! Because of this I don't see
how there will be an issues for WISP as long as all the rules are followed,
which they must by law, another good thing :)

Sincerely, Tony Morella
Demarc Technology Group, A Wireless Solution Provider
Office: 207-667-7583 Fax: 207-433-1008
http://www.demarctech.com

This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the
meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its
disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of
this message. This communication may contain confidential and privileged
material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone
other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the
confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or
distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient please contact the sender by return electronic mail and delete all
copies of this communication


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:08 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service

> It's only practical implementation is a dense urban environment with low
> throughput

I have a very hard time accepting that comment.

3.650 is more power than other unlicenced.
3.650 has better RF characteristics than 5.8G for NLOS and Distance.
Possibly even better than 2.4G (up for debate, based on average size of pine

needles and leafs).
Any time there is a capabilty to serve MANY such as in an Urban area, of
course its also possible to serve a LOWER number of people typical or
subburb or rural.

If you are trying to say, 3.6 Wimax is not a replacement for 900Mhz to
tackle foliage, I 100% agree.
If you say, NLOS is not possible long range, I fully agree, but neither is
any other technology.
If you say, smaller channels will mean lower throughpout for multi-sector
designs, I'd agree with you.

But 3.6G was designed for Rural. Thats why it has higher power levels.
And WiMax was designed for typical cell distances of existing legacy
unlicened gear.

If anything it could be argued that WIMax is Better in rural areas because
it does not have the contention protocols needed to deal with many
interference sources typical of Urban america, and Wimax dies in
interference.

Wimax 3.6G, is as rural as any other product, and smart urban WISPs will
also do their best to use it. Personally, even if its one 20Mhz sector, its
one more sector that can be added to the tower.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] One Ring Networks To Rollout New WiMAX Service


>I would like to note that Redline echoed my thoughts on 3.65 GHz.  It is
>not
> for rural providers and is not for high bandwidth providers.  It's only
> practical implementation is a dense urban environment with low throughput
> clients.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Com

Re: [WISPA] SLA\ToS\Contract

[Tom DeReggi]

What we have found, is that the difficulty is not finding an SLA to copy, 
but having a network/monitoring system that can prove the SLA. Most SLAs I 
have seen are written to based on what that provider can prove, based on the 
capabity of their network, and not necessarilly relevent to someone else's 
network.

Therefore the only real reason to see these SLAs, are jsut to know what the 
competition is offering, to set the bar to strive for or beat.

What we did is take the SLA/TOS of our upstream argiueing that anything we 
offered better was pointless if limited by theirs upstream.

I know this response is not an answer specifically to the question 
(requested info) that you asked, but it is what we found as reality.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:46 PM
Subject: [WISPA] SLA\ToS\Contract


> Does anyone know of where I could locate an SLA, ToS, contract, etc. that 
> would apply to a VPLS or similar layer 2 tunnel system through a WISP?  I 
> might be able to modify a generic one somewhat, but I like to be lazy 
> (don't we all?) and use something someone else already did.  I know 
> Part-15 and WISPA have similar documents available to members, I just 
> don't know how similar.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's whitespace'misinformation'

[Jeromie Reeves]

Over all I think we are in agreement then. I would like to see
licensing kind of like 3650 and have personal devices . All consumer hardware would need to be client side gear only,
like cell phones. AP's can only be installed with a license (like
3650, anyone who pays can get one).  Also GPS sync would be nice to
help people get along but I know that is not very likely.


I have a tower over a town of 7~8000 and can see 200+ APs in 2.4 so I
know exactly what you mean. 400mw 2wire units go a LONG way. I use
PowerStations to get around it. I would love beyond all words to have
whitespace access here.


On 1/18/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personal portable devices would also include laptops.  HAS to include
> laptops.
>
> I think that a compromise would be to start out with the band as an outdoor
> or at least fixed antenna only solution.  Out door so that we could use it
> for public safety or mobile devices, but only ones that would normally be
> attached to a vehicle or some such thing.  And fixed antennas so that we
> could use the band to deliver broadband to homes/businesses.  It would,
> however, be done with an antenna that is mounted either to or in the
> building.
>
> These two steps would keep the number of devices using the band to a much
> smaller level.
>
> On an interesting note, the broadcasters are fighting the whitespaces issue
> very hard, but as they know they are likely to loose the fight I'm told that
> they do support the above position.  This time we as WISPs actually line up
> more closely with big media than we do with NAF or MAP.  sigh, politics,
> sigh  grin
>
> I've not had personal contact with the NAB yet.  I've worked with Carl at
> the 802.22 committee.  Unfortunately the 802.22 committee is very heavy into
> things like geolocation for all devices, broadcaster beacons that can be
> used to shut down transmitters when they are in the area with their mics
> etc.  Our stance has always been that sensing is the only real way to do
> this.  Drawing circles on the map will leave out far too many environmental
> factors.  I'm also totally against the geolocation idea because it'll
> require more electronics, has NO benefit (distance can be learned just fine
> by timing pulses) and we'll need TWO antennas for every dang'd installation!
> Foowy on that.
>
> It's a tough issue for all around, especially without Powell in the
> chairmanship.  Martin is not proving to be a friend of the WISP in many
> ways.  With all of the pressure he's under, maybe it'll help though.
>
> Scriv, Rick H. and I are probably the most up to speed on a lot of this due
> to our involvement with a Whitespaces list that included Cisco, MS, Intel,
> 802.22 etc. going back at least 2 years.  Not much has been done on that
> list since the Report and Order that freed up the Whitespaces for unlicensed
> use though.  I think our stand against personal portable devices has turned
> folks like MS, Intel and such against our stance.  That's to be expected
> though, so I'm not worried about it.
>
> We have to fight for what WE know to be the best options for our markets,
> just like they do.  Our biggest problem is that we're not back there talking
> the FCC and we've not done much with recent NPRMs.  I'd hate for anyone at
> the FCC to mistake that for disinterest vs. time crunch issues.
>
> laters,
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's
> whitespace'misinformation'
>
>
> > I assumed that too but would like to be sure I am making the correct
> > assumptions. I also wonder what he feels should be allowed. I know how
> > I feel about it and lacking information, assume everyone feels the
> > same =)
> >
> > On 1/18/08, Jason Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I would think that by personal portable devices he means things like
> >> cordless phones, wireless headsets, etc etc.   If I understand that
> >> right, I
> >> would have to concur wholeheartedly.
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
> >> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:12 AM
> >> To: WISPA General List
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> >> space'misinformation'
> >>
> >> Can you explain why you feel that way?
> >>
> >> On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
> >> > discussion focused on finding common ground between them and us.
> >> >
> >> > It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep
> >> > personal portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at
> >> > first (really forever as far as I'm concerned).
> >> >
> >> > Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
> >> > marlon
> >> >
> >> > - Original Message -
> >> > From: 

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's whitespace'misinformation'

[Don Renner]

Marlon, would it be possible for Broadband delivery to be what is current
VHF & low UHF channels 2-13 + 14-30 and Higher UHF 31-68+ for personal
devices.  We get better propogations and higher would have appearance of
less distance (not really). Possible solution that all could work for common
goal and leave bands for each.

Don Renner
NetsurfUSA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 10:55 AM
To: WISPA General List
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's
whitespace'misinformation'

Personal portable devices would also include laptops.  HAS to include 
laptops.

I think that a compromise would be to start out with the band as an outdoor 
or at least fixed antenna only solution.  Out door so that we could use it 
for public safety or mobile devices, but only ones that would normally be 
attached to a vehicle or some such thing.  And fixed antennas so that we 
could use the band to deliver broadband to homes/businesses.  It would, 
however, be done with an antenna that is mounted either to or in the 
building.

These two steps would keep the number of devices using the band to a much 
smaller level.

On an interesting note, the broadcasters are fighting the whitespaces issue 
very hard, but as they know they are likely to loose the fight I'm told that

they do support the above position.  This time we as WISPs actually line up 
more closely with big media than we do with NAF or MAP.  sigh, politics, 
sigh  grin

I've not had personal contact with the NAB yet.  I've worked with Carl at 
the 802.22 committee.  Unfortunately the 802.22 committee is very heavy into

things like geolocation for all devices, broadcaster beacons that can be 
used to shut down transmitters when they are in the area with their mics 
etc.  Our stance has always been that sensing is the only real way to do 
this.  Drawing circles on the map will leave out far too many environmental 
factors.  I'm also totally against the geolocation idea because it'll 
require more electronics, has NO benefit (distance can be learned just fine 
by timing pulses) and we'll need TWO antennas for every dang'd installation!

Foowy on that.

It's a tough issue for all around, especially without Powell in the 
chairmanship.  Martin is not proving to be a friend of the WISP in many 
ways.  With all of the pressure he's under, maybe it'll help though.

Scriv, Rick H. and I are probably the most up to speed on a lot of this due 
to our involvement with a Whitespaces list that included Cisco, MS, Intel, 
802.22 etc. going back at least 2 years.  Not much has been done on that 
list since the Report and Order that freed up the Whitespaces for unlicensed

use though.  I think our stand against personal portable devices has turned 
folks like MS, Intel and such against our stance.  That's to be expected 
though, so I'm not worried about it.

We have to fight for what WE know to be the best options for our markets, 
just like they do.  Our biggest problem is that we're not back there talking

the FCC and we've not done much with recent NPRMs.  I'd hate for anyone at 
the FCC to mistake that for disinterest vs. time crunch issues.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's 
whitespace'misinformation'


> I assumed that too but would like to be sure I am making the correct
> assumptions. I also wonder what he feels should be allowed. I know how
> I feel about it and lacking information, assume everyone feels the
> same =)
>
> On 1/18/08, Jason Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would think that by personal portable devices he means things like
>> cordless phones, wireless headsets, etc etc.   If I understand that 
>> right, I
>> would have to concur wholeheartedly.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:12 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white
>> space'misinformation'
>>
>> Can you explain why you feel that way?
>>
>> On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
>> > discussion focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>> >
>> > It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep
>> > personal portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at
>> > first (really forever as far as I'm concerned).
>> >
>> > Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
>> > marlon
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: "WISPA General List" 
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
>> > Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's whit

[WISPA] DigitalPath

[Jason Hensley]

Anyone here used Digital Path gear?  If so, you mind to hit me offlist
please?

Thanks!




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's whitespace'misinformation'

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Personal portable devices would also include laptops.  HAS to include 
laptops.

I think that a compromise would be to start out with the band as an outdoor 
or at least fixed antenna only solution.  Out door so that we could use it 
for public safety or mobile devices, but only ones that would normally be 
attached to a vehicle or some such thing.  And fixed antennas so that we 
could use the band to deliver broadband to homes/businesses.  It would, 
however, be done with an antenna that is mounted either to or in the 
building.

These two steps would keep the number of devices using the band to a much 
smaller level.

On an interesting note, the broadcasters are fighting the whitespaces issue 
very hard, but as they know they are likely to loose the fight I'm told that 
they do support the above position.  This time we as WISPs actually line up 
more closely with big media than we do with NAF or MAP.  sigh, politics, 
sigh  grin

I've not had personal contact with the NAB yet.  I've worked with Carl at 
the 802.22 committee.  Unfortunately the 802.22 committee is very heavy into 
things like geolocation for all devices, broadcaster beacons that can be 
used to shut down transmitters when they are in the area with their mics 
etc.  Our stance has always been that sensing is the only real way to do 
this.  Drawing circles on the map will leave out far too many environmental 
factors.  I'm also totally against the geolocation idea because it'll 
require more electronics, has NO benefit (distance can be learned just fine 
by timing pulses) and we'll need TWO antennas for every dang'd installation! 
Foowy on that.

It's a tough issue for all around, especially without Powell in the 
chairmanship.  Martin is not proving to be a friend of the WISP in many 
ways.  With all of the pressure he's under, maybe it'll help though.

Scriv, Rick H. and I are probably the most up to speed on a lot of this due 
to our involvement with a Whitespaces list that included Cisco, MS, Intel, 
802.22 etc. going back at least 2 years.  Not much has been done on that 
list since the Report and Order that freed up the Whitespaces for unlicensed 
use though.  I think our stand against personal portable devices has turned 
folks like MS, Intel and such against our stance.  That's to be expected 
though, so I'm not worried about it.

We have to fight for what WE know to be the best options for our markets, 
just like they do.  Our biggest problem is that we're not back there talking 
the FCC and we've not done much with recent NPRMs.  I'd hate for anyone at 
the FCC to mistake that for disinterest vs. time crunch issues.

laters,
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's 
whitespace'misinformation'


> I assumed that too but would like to be sure I am making the correct
> assumptions. I also wonder what he feels should be allowed. I know how
> I feel about it and lacking information, assume everyone feels the
> same =)
>
> On 1/18/08, Jason Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I would think that by personal portable devices he means things like
>> cordless phones, wireless headsets, etc etc.   If I understand that 
>> right, I
>> would have to concur wholeheartedly.
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
>> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:12 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white
>> space'misinformation'
>>
>> Can you explain why you feel that way?
>>
>> On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
>> > discussion focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>> >
>> > It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep
>> > personal portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at
>> > first (really forever as far as I'm concerned).
>> >
>> > Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
>> > marlon
>> >
>> > - Original Message -
>> > From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > To: "WISPA General List" 
>> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
>> > Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
>> 'misinformation'
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>> >
>> > The row over US 'white space' spectrum continues, with the newly
>> > formed Wireless Innovation Alliance
>> > 
>> > stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that
>> > wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with
>> > digital TV signals.
>> >
>> > The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by
>> > the National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the
>> > public just as the FCC prepares to test upd

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation'

[Marlon K. Schafer]

I haven't been able to nail down actual numbers so I'm working via 
experience and intuition at this point.

Having given the standard disclaimers.  I have a tower site that looks 
out over something like 1000 homes.  Give or take a few.  This AP has a 45* 
sector on it.  The closest houses are more than a half mile away.  Most of 
them are at 1 to 2 miles and 6 to 8 miles away from my ap.  I pick up just 
short of 50 (that's FIVE ZEOR) ap's.  Naturally almost all of those are 
indoor units.  But it's still massive interference.

Just think of how bad that particular problem will be with 400 to 700mhz 
transmitters.

The indoor market should actually WANT higher bands.  It helps them keep 
from stepping all over each other's networks.

That make sense?
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Jeromie Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 3:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white 
space'misinformation'


> Can you explain why you feel that way?
>
> On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a discussion
>> focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>>
>> It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep personal
>> portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at first (really
>> forever as far as I'm concerned).
>>
>> Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
>> marlon
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 
>> 'misinformation'
>>
>>
>>
>> Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>>
>> The row over US 'white space' spectrum continues, with the newly formed
>> Wireless Innovation Alliance 
>> stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that
>> wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with
>> digital TV signals.
>>
>> The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by the
>> National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the public just
>> as the FCC prepares to test updated wireless devices from the likes of
>> Microsoft (the original prototypes failed non-interference testing,
>> though the WIA claims this had more to do with poor testing methods than
>> real problems for digital TV signals). These products are designed to
>> work in an unused channel within the digital TV band, but to switch to
>> another channel if the first is needed for a television signal.
>>
>> The WIA was formed last month to lobby the FCC to complete testing and
>> move forward with technical guidelines. Six House of Representatives
>> members wrote to FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently to urge a final
>> decision in the next few months. The transition from analog to digital
>> TV is due to be completed in February 2009.
>>
>> "Upcoming testing of white space concept devices is meant to assist FCC
>> engineers to craft the strongest possible rules while ensuring maximum
>> public benefit. Yet instead of respecting the FCC's desire to perform
>> concept testing, your recent public misinformation campaign has confused
>> the testing process and misled the public and policy makers," stated the
>> WIA in a letter
>> 
>> to NAB president David Rehr
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>> FCC License # PG-12-25133
>> Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>> Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
>> Phone 818-227-4220   Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation'

[Jeromie Reeves]

 I assumed that too but would like to be sure I am making the correct
assumptions. I also wonder what he feels should be allowed. I know how
I feel about it and lacking information, assume everyone feels the
same =)

On 1/18/08, Jason Hensley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would think that by personal portable devices he means things like
> cordless phones, wireless headsets, etc etc.   If I understand that right, I
> would have to concur wholeheartedly.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:12 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white
> space'misinformation'
>
> Can you explain why you feel that way?
>
> On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
> > discussion focused on finding common ground between them and us.
> >
> > It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep
> > personal portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at
> > first (really forever as far as I'm concerned).
> >
> > Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
> > marlon
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
> > Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
> 'misinformation'
> >
> >
> >
> > Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
> >
> > The row over US 'white space' spectrum continues, with the newly
> > formed Wireless Innovation Alliance
> > 
> > stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that
> > wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with
> > digital TV signals.
> >
> > The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by
> > the National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the
> > public just as the FCC prepares to test updated wireless devices from
> > the likes of Microsoft (the original prototypes failed
> > non-interference testing, though the WIA claims this had more to do
> > with poor testing methods than real problems for digital TV signals).
> > These products are designed to work in an unused channel within the
> > digital TV band, but to switch to another channel if the first is needed
> for a television signal.
> >
> > The WIA was formed last month to lobby the FCC to complete testing and
> > move forward with technical guidelines. Six House of Representatives
> > members wrote to FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently to urge a final
> > decision in the next few months. The transition from analog to digital
> > TV is due to be completed in February 2009.
> >
> > "Upcoming testing of white space concept devices is meant to assist
> > FCC engineers to craft the strongest possible rules while ensuring
> > maximum public benefit. Yet instead of respecting the FCC's desire to
> > perform concept testing, your recent public misinformation campaign
> > has confused the testing process and misled the public and policy
> > makers," stated the WIA in a letter
> >  > 0re%20WS%20testing.pdf>
> > to NAB president David Rehr
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 FCC License #
> > PG-12-25133 Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free
> > Wireless WANs"
> > Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
> > Phone 818-227-4220   Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> > --
> > --
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> > --
> > --
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http:/

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'

[Ron Wallace]

Hey Marlon,

I support you in this belief, "Take that as a firm stance."

Ron Wallace
Hahnron, Inc.
220 S. Jackson Dt.
Addison, MI 49220

Phone: (517)547-8410
Mobile: (517)605-4542
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

>-Original Message-
>From: Marlon K. Schafer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 01:26 AM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>
>I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a discussion 
>focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>
>It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep personal 
>portable devices out of the whitespaces band. At least at first (really 
>forever as far as I'm concerned).
>
>Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
>marlon
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
>Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>
>
>
> Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>
>The row over US ‘white space’ spectrum continues, with the newly formed
>Wireless Innovation Alliance 
>stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that
>wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with
>digital TV signals.
>
>The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by the
>National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the public just
>as the FCC prepares to test updated wireless devices from the likes of
>Microsoft (the original prototypes failed non-interference testing,
>though the WIA claims this had more to do with poor testing methods than
>real problems for digital TV signals). These products are designed to
>work in an unused channel within the digital TV band, but to switch to
>another channel if the first is needed for a television signal.
>
>The WIA was formed last month to lobby the FCC to complete testing and
>move forward with technical guidelines. Six House of Representatives
>members wrote to FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently to urge a final
>decision in the next few months. The transition from analog to digital
>TV is due to be completed in February 2009.
>
>“Upcoming testing of white space concept devices is meant to assist FCC
>engineers to craft the strongest possible rules while ensuring maximum
>public benefit. Yet instead of respecting the FCC’s desire to perform
>concept testing, your recent public misinformation campaign has confused
>the testing process and misled the public and policy makers,” stated the
>WIA in a letter
>
>to NAB president David Rehr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>FCC License # PG-12-25133
>Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
>Phone 818-227-4220 Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
>
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 
>
>
>
>
>WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'

[Mac Dearman]

> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
> 
> Can you explain why you feel that way?

 For all the same reasons we complain about now in the trash spectrum we are
making a living in. If personal portable devices are allowed in the
whitespace then it would be no different than what we have today as far as
the raised noise floor. Just think about all the Linksys wireless routers,
portable telephones, garage door openers, baby monitors, outdoor temperature
sensors and only God knows what else that we would all have to compete with
in towns and communities.

Mac 




> 
> On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a
> discussion
> > focused on finding common ground between them and us.
> >
> > It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep
> personal
> > portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at first
> (really
> > forever as far as I'm concerned).
> >
> > Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
> > marlon
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "WISPA General List" 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
> > Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
> 'misinformation'
> >
> >
> >
> > Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
> >
> > The row over US 'white space' spectrum continues, with the newly
> formed
> > Wireless Innovation Alliance 
> > stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that
> > wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with
> > digital TV signals.
> >
> > The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by
> the
> > National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the public
> just
> > as the FCC prepares to test updated wireless devices from the likes
> of
> > Microsoft (the original prototypes failed non-interference testing,
> > though the WIA claims this had more to do with poor testing methods
> than
> > real problems for digital TV signals). These products are designed to
> > work in an unused channel within the digital TV band, but to switch
> to
> > another channel if the first is needed for a television signal.
> >
> > The WIA was formed last month to lobby the FCC to complete testing
> and
> > move forward with technical guidelines. Six House of Representatives
> > members wrote to FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently to urge a final
> > decision in the next few months. The transition from analog to
> digital
> > TV is due to be completed in February 2009.
> >
> > "Upcoming testing of white space concept devices is meant to assist
> FCC
> > engineers to craft the strongest possible rules while ensuring
> maximum
> > public benefit. Yet instead of respecting the FCC's desire to perform
> > concept testing, your recent public misinformation campaign has
> confused
> > the testing process and misled the public and policy makers," stated
> the
> > WIA in a letter
> >
>  re%20WS%20testing.pdf>
> > to NAB president David Rehr
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
> > FCC License # PG-12-25133
> > Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free Wireless
> WANs"
> > Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
> > Phone 818-227-4220   Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> ---
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> > -
> ---
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> ---
> > WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> > http://signup.wispa.org/
> > -
> ---
> >
> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >
> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >
> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >
> 
> 
> ---
> -
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> ---
> -
> 
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




W

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space'misinformation'

[Jason Hensley]

I would think that by personal portable devices he means things like
cordless phones, wireless headsets, etc etc.   If I understand that right, I
would have to concur wholeheartedly.
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 5:12 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white
space'misinformation'

Can you explain why you feel that way?

On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a 
> discussion focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>
> It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep 
> personal portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at 
> first (really forever as far as I'm concerned).
>
> Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space
'misinformation'
>
>
>
> Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>
> The row over US 'white space' spectrum continues, with the newly 
> formed Wireless Innovation Alliance 
> 
> stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that 
> wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with 
> digital TV signals.
>
> The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by 
> the National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the 
> public just as the FCC prepares to test updated wireless devices from 
> the likes of Microsoft (the original prototypes failed 
> non-interference testing, though the WIA claims this had more to do 
> with poor testing methods than real problems for digital TV signals). 
> These products are designed to work in an unused channel within the 
> digital TV band, but to switch to another channel if the first is needed
for a television signal.
>
> The WIA was formed last month to lobby the FCC to complete testing and 
> move forward with technical guidelines. Six House of Representatives 
> members wrote to FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently to urge a final 
> decision in the next few months. The transition from analog to digital 
> TV is due to be completed in February 2009.
>
> "Upcoming testing of white space concept devices is meant to assist 
> FCC engineers to craft the strongest possible rules while ensuring 
> maximum public benefit. Yet instead of respecting the FCC's desire to 
> perform concept testing, your recent public misinformation campaign 
> has confused the testing process and misled the public and policy 
> makers," stated the WIA in a letter 
>  0re%20WS%20testing.pdf>
> to NAB president David Rehr
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 FCC License # 
> PG-12-25133 Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free 
> Wireless WANs"
> Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
> Phone 818-227-4220   Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --
> --
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> --
> --
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --
> --
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'

[Jeromie Reeves]

Can you explain why you feel that way?

On 1/17/08, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've sent a note to WIA and asked if they'd be interested in a discussion
> focused on finding common ground between them and us.
>
> It's my belief that WISPA needs to fight tooth and nail to keep personal
> portable devices out of the whitespaces band.  At least at first (really
> forever as far as I'm concerned).
>
> Anyone have a problem with that as a firm stance?
> marlon
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:05 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>
>
>
> Wireless industry slams NAB's white space 'misinformation'
>
> The row over US 'white space' spectrum continues, with the newly formed
> Wireless Innovation Alliance 
> stepping up its campaign to convince the FCC and the industry that
> wireless devices can be used in these areas without interfering with
> digital TV signals.
>
> The WIA last week accused the broadcast industry, as represented by the
> National Association of Broadasters (NAB), of misleading the public just
> as the FCC prepares to test updated wireless devices from the likes of
> Microsoft (the original prototypes failed non-interference testing,
> though the WIA claims this had more to do with poor testing methods than
> real problems for digital TV signals). These products are designed to
> work in an unused channel within the digital TV band, but to switch to
> another channel if the first is needed for a television signal.
>
> The WIA was formed last month to lobby the FCC to complete testing and
> move forward with technical guidelines. Six House of Representatives
> members wrote to FCC chairman Kevin Martin recently to urge a final
> decision in the next few months. The transition from analog to digital
> TV is due to be completed in February 2009.
>
> "Upcoming testing of white space concept devices is meant to assist FCC
> engineers to craft the strongest possible rules while ensuring maximum
> public benefit. Yet instead of respecting the FCC's desire to perform
> concept testing, your recent public misinformation campaign has confused
> the testing process and misled the public and policy makers," stated the
> WIA in a letter
> 
> to NAB president David Rehr
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
> FCC License # PG-12-25133
> Author of the Cisco Press Book - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
> Vendor-Neutral Wireless Training-Troubleshooting-Consulting
> Phone 818-227-4220   Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/