Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
No, but it has 8 wayside T1s. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Harris Constellation full hot standby with space diversity is spendy. Does any of the Trango stuff do OC-3 or DS-3 native? We cannot put SS7 A links on IP based technology. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I believe all of Trango's licensed equipment (6ghz, 11ghz, 18ghz, 23ghz) is the same price. Travis Microserv Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Moreover, 6 GHz hardware is my most expensive stuff. I can get 11 GHz dragonwave at a much lower cost and it will do more than 6 GHz for most applications. Plus have all the perqs of license and exclusivity etc. - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Yes, agreed, but maybe thats part of the misunderstanding What guarantees that most Telcos E911 links are on 6Ghz and not on 11G or 18Ghz? What gaurantees that 6Ghz gets used for E911 instead of to transport DSL for all your residential subs? Are providers really choosing 6Ghz first for those applications, over other bands? I know some of those LECs, also don't hesitate to put those life critical links on 5.8Ghz unlicensed Tsunmai/Linx radios. Every ATT tower in my town now has 11Ghz or 18Ghz 2ft antennas on their towers instead, so they can get teh faster speeds of 300mbps and greater that those spectrum ranges offer, beyond 6Ghz. Towers are so close now, do they really need 30 mile 6Ghz range? I understnad the concept of mission critical. I'd never suggest anything that would compromise that. The relevent question is Does 6Ghz spectrum get left vacant in some areas because of the limits large antennas put on it? If I'm wrong, and there is to much congestion, and/or the use is way up, well I'll bow down on my opinion. But I'm not convinced of that, yet. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... So I guess satellite earth station minimum size requirements would really make a barrier to entry. I think we had to have a 21 foot dish minimum for an inmarsat uplink... By the same logic should I be pissed at that requirement? If you interfere with my 6 GHz system, E-911 links die, critical air traffic control circuits die, people can die. Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi
Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
Thanks, The manual I have obn hand is a pre release one, lots of info is missing... Got the latest available? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:49 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Hello Gino, You would really be doing yourself a favor to skim through the manual and then start asking more specific questions, but here's a rundown from memory on critical configuration points: (1) Enter configuration mode by typing con and enter password (2) odup on this turns on power to the ODU (3) cabl x.xx x.xx x.xx refer to manual for cable loss settings. 100' of LMR400 would be: cabl 1.48 2.25 3.90 (4) freq 19xxx this sets the TX freq for the ODU. Refer to your freq coordination (5) speed channel_bw modulation speed 3 qam16 would be used to set the radio to a 40MHz channel at QAM16. refer to freq coordination. (6) default on this sets default_opmode to ON (7) rat off this turns auto rate shift off. When first setting up you want this feature off. (8) odul on this turns on the ODU LED RSSI Display to aide in alignment (9) align on this turns on alignment mode which increases the refresh rate in which the RSSI is displayed. (10) target -35 this sets your target RSSI to -35 refer to your freq coordination for your expected RSSI reading (11) power 17 this sets your TX power to 17db refer to your freq coordination for your power setting Do not leave the align on after you have completed alignment. Do not leave the odul on after you have completed alignment. The cable loss settings, target RSSI and power will all have an effect on your RSSI, BER and MSE. This is something that I have been speaking with Trango about, but just takes time to learn and feel your way to the ideal combination. While the Giga radios are not a plug-in, point and walk away radio set they have proven to be very reliable, flexible and live up to their claims. We have deployed several Giga radios (6GHz, 11GHz and 18GHz) and have several more planned for the very near future. The price vs. feature set the Giga offers make it a hard radio to pass up. Additionally, Trango support has been good. Feel free to try me at the office if you have any questions. You probably will on your first one...grin Once you have it up and running you'll be very happy with the performance. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Im going to do this early am tomorrow, Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Don't bother with the web interface. Skim through the manual and do all configuration and management from the CLI. As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support. I can be available if you are still having difficulty. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup
On its way off list. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:08 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Thanks, The manual I have obn hand is a pre release one, lots of info is missing... Got the latest available? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:49 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Hello Gino, You would really be doing yourself a favor to skim through the manual and then start asking more specific questions, but here's a rundown from memory on critical configuration points: (1) Enter configuration mode by typing con and enter password (2) odup on this turns on power to the ODU (3) cabl x.xx x.xx x.xx refer to manual for cable loss settings. 100' of LMR400 would be: cabl 1.48 2.25 3.90 (4) freq 19xxx this sets the TX freq for the ODU. Refer to your freq coordination (5) speed channel_bw modulation speed 3 qam16 would be used to set the radio to a 40MHz channel at QAM16. refer to freq coordination. (6) default on this sets default_opmode to ON (7) rat off this turns auto rate shift off. When first setting up you want this feature off. (8) odul on this turns on the ODU LED RSSI Display to aide in alignment (9) align on this turns on alignment mode which increases the refresh rate in which the RSSI is displayed. (10) target -35 this sets your target RSSI to -35 refer to your freq coordination for your expected RSSI reading (11) power 17 this sets your TX power to 17db refer to your freq coordination for your power setting Do not leave the align on after you have completed alignment. Do not leave the odul on after you have completed alignment. The cable loss settings, target RSSI and power will all have an effect on your RSSI, BER and MSE. This is something that I have been speaking with Trango about, but just takes time to learn and feel your way to the ideal combination. While the Giga radios are not a plug-in, point and walk away radio set they have proven to be very reliable, flexible and live up to their claims. We have deployed several Giga radios (6GHz, 11GHz and 18GHz) and have several more planned for the very near future. The price vs. feature set the Giga offers make it a hard radio to pass up. Additionally, Trango support has been good. Feel free to try me at the office if you have any questions. You probably will on your first one...grin Once you have it up and running you'll be very happy with the performance. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:12 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Im going to do this early am tomorrow, Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup Don't bother with the web interface. Skim through the manual and do all configuration and management from the CLI. As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support. I can be available if you are still having difficulty. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gino Villarini Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks? for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel size) I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ... Gino A. Villarini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is
Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
Likewise. When we shut down our dial-up in 2002, we kept the mail service going with the domain our users had for almost 5 years, charging $60 annually, including Postini. We also do a good amount of backup email services all completely outsourced from multiple providers. Frank Muto www.SecureEmailPlus.com - Original Message - From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email Easiest $5/mth I have ever made. We have dial-up customers that have switched to other companies DSL that can not get our wireless ad keep thier email with us for $60/year. I have one customer that has done it for over 3 years now. Scottie -- Original Message -- From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:18:24 -0700 I think we keep it alive for $5/month. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Brad, Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I guess it could become more of an issue. I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love
Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
Oh, I don't argue against the fact that there is signal present and can interfere with other systems beyond what I consider usable. I was just saying I don't think we're going to be able to efficiently have systems that go 50 miles. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:20 PM To: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage That's my point, the noise will be much lower in these bands if things are deployed in a sane way. Wimax gear has receive sensitivity in the -93 to -98 range and from the reports I have heard, works very well at those levels. While a WISP may be trying to set a network up for max modulation, the FCC will look at the contour a whitespace station creates in a much different way. It will be based on the RF energy it creates, not the signal margin above the receiver threshold needed to achieve the better modulation rate. If you map a realistic footprint based on a signal level down as low as -98, that might be closer to the contour they will create in their geolocation database. This contour will be the one they use to see if you will encroach on any TV contour or other protected/semi protected users of the spectrum. The WISP operator will not get to determine the contour limits based on their own desired modulation rate. I was saying that you should be able to use the -90 number in your mapping to get a more realistic sense of where the signal will be going and what size polygon you might have to deal with as you register it in a geolocation database. Remember, even though you may not agree that a particular signal level is adequate for your purposes at a certain level, the signal that still remains on the air at the lower levels, will be an interfering/undesired signal to all other systems. The FCC is charged with managing the total signal emitted, it's affects over distance, and the other users of the spectrum. They have the big picture to look at, while as a WISP it can be easy to overlook those other factors. I am not sure what the signal level will be that the FCC determines must be protected for TV receivers, but whatever that number is you would be wise to do RF plots that show signal down to that level. It may not be useable as a data network but it will certainly be able to bother TV reception at that level. WISP use of whitespaces will be a secondary use to LICENSED users of the band. And homeowners with off air TV reception will be considered licensed in this case. That is a different mindset from what most are used to. It will create the need for different thinking when planning a network. This is not bad news, just a new and different way to think about your RF planning. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. I'm a little confused on that statement. With our Aperto live testing a few years back (pre-wimax), the best modulation we could get was qam16 at the -85 levels. And that was before considering the 25db SNR required above the noise. What good is sensitivity, if the noise ends up being higher than the sensitivity? Sure TV broadcasters shot for -120, but thats one direction broadcasting, with no expense cut for technology. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brian Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:46 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage Obviously we are still speculating here because the rules are certainly not clear. With technology development and the results I am hearing from those who are using WiMax equipment, I would say that -90 should be a safe signal level to use and still have good modulation rates. To assume TVWS will always get full modulation and then try to also claim that it is the most cost affective way to reach the low population density areas will be difficult. Site footprints have to be looked at lowest modulation rates because that RF signal is still out there. It is important to look at how far that signal will still be traveling even though you can't achieve full rates. The transmitted carrier will still be out there as part of the contour for your base and must be considered in the process of registration. Your footprint will still be very large even though you don't prefer to operate at the slower rates, which for others
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree beamwidth? Tom DeReggi Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum. It is generally big time QAM with tons of margin. Like 40 dB+ of margin. Part 90 and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before microprocessors. So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game there. It is all about availability and fading. We try to design for 99.999% availability using the old ATT long haul spec. With the new digital radios with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I've always liked the idea of allowing smaller antennas on systems that have ATPC. That would allow for much smaller fade margins. By using lower power levels I think that there would be even less stray signal than there is with 6' dishes. Especially on the back side of the links. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and FCC committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But the commission obviously was not listening, or chose to ignore us. What was clear is that they hear Google and Microsoft loud and clear. Atleast, we know where we stand now. We also have a focused goal moving forward. The rules are still easy to fix, if the FCC will allow it. All they have to do is waive the magic wand and change
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
roflol Too true. Have you ever offered to sell one of them a T-1 instead of a best effort DSL typer service? Any takers? Nope. None here either. marlon - Original Message - From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:10 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote: Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit higher than that used to surf porn? If you've ever manned the phones during an outage, you'd understand that internet access IS that critical. Either a customer is paying $29.95/month for the link and is losing thousands of dollars per day while the internet is down or things even worse are happening. :-) -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering* * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member* * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks* 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Hello Mike, Apples and oranges. You cannot compare UL best effort gear to carrier class licensed gear. Two different worlds...both clearly have their place. Chuck touches on this in another post. While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link. That's assuming the Orthogon can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX. Is this déjà vu? Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs. licensed? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs.
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary licenses. Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an undesirable position at some time in the future? The fewer surprises the better, IMO. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I guess it could become more of an issue. I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Anyone want to buy 13 bad Orthogon power supplies??? ;-) Can't compare the two. Orthogon is sales bandwidth. Licensed is true bandwidth -B- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:41:59 To: 'WISPA General List'wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Mike, Apples and oranges. You cannot compare UL best effort gear to carrier class licensed gear. Two different worlds...both clearly have their place. Chuck touches on this in another post. While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link. That's assuming the Orthogon can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX. Is this déjà vu? Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs. licensed? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its
Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
We do that as well. -RickG On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Blair Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a rule, we give leaving residentials 30 days on their email. We often get them back within that time. RickG wrote: OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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] heavy usage customers
Nothing, if you own the fiber. I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate? Matt We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP. So no latency to speak of there. From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get. Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site. How much does that cost? 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] cancelled customer email
As a follow up. I have decided to charge him $5/month per email as long as it is prepaid for the length of time he wants to keep it. Thanks to all for your suggestions. It was very helpful! -RickG On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Josh Luthman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally without an internet package I'd do 10 or 15 On 11/6/08, Jerry Richardson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: $5/month per address __ Jerry Richardson airCloud Communications -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email I think we keep it alive for $5/month. - Original Message - From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do. I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the ATT DSL giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email accounts. How do you handle this? -RickG 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/ -- Sent from my mobile device Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I don't understand why ATPC isn't a regulatory requirement for all two-way communications. It just makes sense. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Marlon K. Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:25 AM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I've always liked the idea of allowing smaller antennas on systems that have ATPC. That would allow for much smaller fade margins. By using lower power levels I think that there would be even less stray signal than there is with 6' dishes. Especially on the back side of the links. marlon - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use @ 6 GHz. The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile hops. Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Ok, that opens up a useful conversation. Why is that? 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed. I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not translating to larger deployment. I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes. So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas? Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference? Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated? And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller antenna is secondary and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size antenna? The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused spectrum available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower or property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed. 6ft requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz that is a real bad idea. It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq pair in some areas today. Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean even fewer available freq pairs. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas to be allowed on 6Ghz. Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz. The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t hold for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP... aren't there already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that have quite some range to them? -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Butch, Then, the music turned to noise You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment. They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead, and said, but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also a very important part of broadband delivery.. The problem was not the
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I'm not saying use a 6 GHz licensed radio on an Orthogon, but make some steps towards improving spectral efficiency. For the cost of licensed radios, you'd think they'd put some money into RD. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:41 AM To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Mike, Apples and oranges. You cannot compare UL best effort gear to carrier class licensed gear. Two different worlds...both clearly have their place. Chuck touches on this in another post. While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link. That's assuming the Orthogon can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX. Is this déjà vu? Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs. licensed? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hammett Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Note on secondary license Its not exactly like it sounds. The secondary license just means there are different threshhold values of hearing/transmitting interference that need to be accommodated or prevented. These values are still many times better than what someone might have with unlicensed. Its not as scary a proposition, once you learn exactly how the secondary license works. It does not necessarilly mean that you are in risk to de-install your existing link. A solution could end up being, dropping power a slight bit, and dropping the modulation a slight bit to accommodate. I don't fully understand the difference between the primary and secondary license well enough to explain it. I just know that when it was explained to me, it cleared up misconception I had, and changed my view in favor that it was not a risky thing. One of the things to remember is energy is the same amount of energy wether it transmits long range in a narrow beam or shorter range in a wider beam. As long as there are defined constants, Widerbeams don't necessarilly mean that it will cause more interference, when the antenna gain reduces. It depends on where the other links are in the region that you are Freq coordinating for. Its also possible rules could be made to favor the primary more to reduce risk, if ^ghz was also allowed for smaller antennas. For example, similar to the concept of the 3 to 1 rule of 2.4Ghz. On the more urban east coast where there is high rain zones, 11Ghz starts loosing 5-9s at about 11miles or so. The only viable purpose for 6Ghz isn't just 20-40 mile links. It would be very useful to have for 12-20 miles links at 5-9s, which 6Ghz can offer at licensed. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
You are forgetting that the licensed links are Full Duplex delivering twice the capacity. And you can't forget that the Orthogon often has to use two polarities to get the speed/quality. The newer Licensed gear can do 256QAM effectively, and get 380mbps on that 50mhz channel. (Trango Apex or Dragonwave). Sure 512QAM is a bit more efficient, but Licensed will get there to, I'm sure, if they haven't already.. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up not deploying the links or doing smaller hops. Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum, and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly. These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my opinion. I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I argue whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used. FiberTower proved a need, and proved no harm to existing links in place. I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was promised when it was licesned to the licensee. But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a smaller antenna, where its feasible, to enable better use of vacant spectrum. I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes. I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 4ft dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum preservation conscious. There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft versus 6ft dishes. Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the grasp of many many needy WISPs. What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty. Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible links, cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology. Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same number of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum becomes available. It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider to eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason that any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. Anything else, is spectrum hording. Any new applicant should also have the right to pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange to free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link. Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum. It is generally big time QAM with tons of margin. Like 40 dB+ of margin. Part 90 and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before microprocessors. So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game there. It is all about availability and fading. We try to design for 99.999% availability using the old ATT long haul spec. With the new digital radios with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense to me. Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 5.x Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so spectrum is not wasted? What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz? From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range. Mesa needed to do a
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Actually. when comparing 5.x UL to 6G licensed, there is no functional difference in technology. There is NO reason a 6ghz radio can't be made as efficient as a Orthogon 5.x. Licensed just gives protection from interference at very low noise threshhold. It does not change the characteristics of the RF technology. That same engineering can be done with a UL Orthogon, without the protection. Its should be even more feasible to meet Orthogon specs considering that the protection is granted, to be allowed the link margins that will survive the deployment of the innovations. There is absolutely no arguement that holds water to suggest that a Lciensed Link needs to be less efficient. The whole purpose of Licensed is having protection to be most efficient. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary licenses. Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an undesirable position at some time in the future? The fewer surprises the better, IMO. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I guess it could become more of an issue. I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent:
Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers
Are you wanting to have a dissertation of FCC part 36 separations and settlements and the uniform system of accounts? Or perhaps NECA Tariff 5? My answer was a philosophical answer. The making of the sausage is ugly. But at the end of the day, all accounts are settled. - Original Message - From: Matt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers Nothing, if you own the fiber. I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate? Matt We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP. So no latency to speak of there. From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get. Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site. How much does that cost? 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
I didn't write the book. I read it. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty. Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible links, cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology. Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same number of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum becomes available. It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider to eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason that any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. Anything else, is spectrum hording. Any new applicant should also have the right to pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange to free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link. Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum. It is generally big time QAM with tons of margin. Like 40 dB+ of margin. Part 90 and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before microprocessors. So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game there. It is all about availability and fading. We try to design for 99.999% availability using the old ATT long haul spec. With the new digital radios with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did NOT meet the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a secondary basis. . so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules. But relaxing the rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the spectrum more doesn't make sense
[WISPA] OT election results
Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] OT election results
I'm glad the whitespace spectrum was approved. I hear tell our new fearless leader wants to appoint a CIO for the country. That undoubtedly means even more regulation, process and red tape. Just read any large companies CIO blog. Ugh. I'm hoping that WISPs will be able to bid on contracts for networks, as the new economy and all it's fixing the poverty line will probably include digital divide provisions. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] OT election results
Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up. Hope everyone enjoys it. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT election results Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] OT election results
Brad, You are 100% correct. Taxes up. Markets haven't reacted well at all to the choice for our new leader. Not at all. Brad Belton wrote: Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up. Hope everyone enjoys it. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT election results Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] OT election results
Our taxes may go up, but we get free gas and don't have to pay our mortgage payments any more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI I wonder what's going to happen when people come back to the real world and realize Obama isn't going to pay their mortgages for them? Travis Microserv Brad Belton wrote: Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up. Hope everyone enjoys it. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT election results Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] 1.9ghz?
Hi, I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz??? Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the interference free cordless frequency. Travis Microserv 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] OT election results
I agree 100% (or even 110%) That is O.T. This clearly is NOT a list for political discussions but I can send you a fine list of political sites where politics are discussed 24/7. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Cisco Press Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs Read my new EBook-Minimize Your Microwave Energy Exposure from Cellphones http://www.lulu.com/content/4368917 FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile http://www.linkedin.com/in/jackunger 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/
Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?
Yep, pretty cool huh? We recommend only DECT 6.0 and that is the only thing we stock in our store. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz? Hi, I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz??? Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the interference free cordless frequency. Travis Microserv 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] 1.9ghz?
I believe Plantroincs uses 1.9ghz too On 11/6/08, Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep, pretty cool huh? We recommend only DECT 6.0 and that is the only thing we stock in our store. - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:10 PM Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz? Hi, I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz??? Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the interference free cordless frequency. Travis Microserv 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/ -- Sent from my mobile device Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer 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] OT election results
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Travis Johnson wrote: Our taxes may go up, but we get free gas and don't have to pay our mortgage payments any more Not sure where the list daddy is, but this needs to go to another list. It doesn't matter how we feel about the election (I have my opinions, too, and they're as strong as you all), but this is not the right place to discuss. You can discuss this on the WISPA-Chat list if you like. http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/chat -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * 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] 1.9ghz?
Yes, the DECT phones are great! I've had a Uniden set for about a year or more. I think I've got five or six handsets throughout the house. They are a bit older in design (no keypad backlight), but the newer styles are pretty slick. Definitely go for DECT when it comes to cordless phones IMO. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz? Hi, I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz??? Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the interference free cordless frequency. Travis Microserv 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] OT election results
Jack Unger wrote: I agree 100% (or even 110%) That is O.T. This clearly is NOT a list for political discussions but I can send you a fine list of political sites where politics are discussed 24/7. Certainly. Yet a lot of the things on this list go off in various tangents. :) We're just short cutting the process! LOL. However in all seriousness you are correct. Marlon K. Schafer wrote: Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
fair enough. I'm trying to re-write it Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I didn't write the book. I read it. - Original Message - From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty. Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible links, cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology. Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same number of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum becomes available. It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider to eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason that any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. Anything else, is spectrum hording. Any new applicant should also have the right to pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange to free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link. Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Chuck McCown - 3 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum. It is generally big time QAM with tons of margin. Like 40 dB+ of margin. Part 90 and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before microprocessors. So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game there. It is all about availability and fading. We try to design for 99.999% availability using the old ATT long haul spec. With the new digital radios with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it. - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. Chuck refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna. Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 MHz, end of story. Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a few years. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point? No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due to the barrier to entry. Telco's (like Chuck) use 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support the dishes. Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, its $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of whether its approved. Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the right to build a tower, IF it occurs. Didn't AtT almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers? Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that should be better available to smaller companies that don't build/own the actual towers. It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an antenna approval. I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the larger dishes... Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 4ft dish so it was allowed to be used for a primary license. However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft2ft dishes that did
Re: [WISPA] OT election results
Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up That depends on who We is. Money has to be made before taxes can be paid on it :-( Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT election results Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up. Hope everyone enjoys it. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT election results Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] OT election results
Taxes are the least of my concern, at this point. My concern is what will happen to the Lending/Financial market? Will it be easier or harder to get financing for WISP expansion (lease or capitol purchases)? What will happen to our real estate assets? Will banks recognize the fair value of them, again? These will all be effected by whetehr the economy suffers or improves. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wyble [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT election results Brad, You are 100% correct. Taxes up. Markets haven't reacted well at all to the choice for our new leader. Not at all. Brad Belton wrote: Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up. Hope everyone enjoys it. Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] OT election results Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? marlon 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Probably depends on who you are dealing with... :-) In a practical sense you shouldn't have to deploy 11GHz secondary as 18GHz fits that bill nicely. But in most of Colorado (and Washington DC) it is either impossible or very difficult to deploy 18GHz gear. So its either 4' 23GHz or take the risk on 11GHz. Personally I'm not worried about it... as the 2' dish is pretty close to meeting the 3' dish requirements as far as side lobes (at least with my limited understanding) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:07 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary licenses. Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an undesirable position at some time in the future? The fewer surprises the better, IMO. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I guess it could become more of an issue. I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed. They make you use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower. I allows more frequency reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint. We are in a rural area and sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of
Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Makes you wonder... if the Orthogon guys are building the new Moto licensed product... what might they do? :-) That is a happy thought Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:37 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Actually. when comparing 5.x UL to 6G licensed, there is no functional difference in technology. There is NO reason a 6ghz radio can't be made as efficient as a Orthogon 5.x. Licensed just gives protection from interference at very low noise threshhold. It does not change the characteristics of the RF technology. That same engineering can be done with a UL Orthogon, without the protection. Its should be even more feasible to meet Orthogon specs considering that the protection is granted, to be allowed the link margins that will survive the deployment of the innovations. There is absolutely no arguement that holds water to suggest that a Lciensed Link needs to be less efficient. The whole purpose of Licensed is having protection to be most efficient. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Brad Belton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:07 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary licenses. Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an undesirable position at some time in the future? The fewer surprises the better, IMO. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I guess it could become more of an issue. I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm
Re: [WISPA] OT election results
Hi All, Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was. Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for us? So Jesus, Barack Obama and Boy George walk into a bar Oh wait, wrong list, sorry. c This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. 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] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
Yes, it is a happy thought from a technical perspective. Just hope they don't put the Orthogon price tag on it :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: 3-dB Networks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Probably depends on who you are dealing with... :-) In a practical sense you shouldn't have to deploy 11GHz secondary as 18GHz fits that bill nicely. But in most of Colorado (and Washington DC) it is either impossible or very difficult to deploy 18GHz gear. So its either 4' 23GHz or take the risk on 11GHz. Personally I'm not worried about it... as the 2' dish is pretty close to meeting the 3' dish requirements as far as side lobes (at least with my limited understanding) Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:07 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary licenses. Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an undesirable position at some time in the future? The fewer surprises the better, IMO. Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I guess it could become more of an issue. I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Hello Daniel, A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking of. How long has the secondary license option been available? Not very long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue. With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be long before those cases become much more prevalent. Just an opinion... Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened once or twice? Best, Brad -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 3-dB Networks Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Brad, I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders had to upgrade dishes. From what I understand it hasn't happened more than once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me. I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week. I'm not ever worried about an issue with it Daniel White 3-dB Networks -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad Belton Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today... Tom, Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas. Probably two to three times that and yes, that does make a big difference. While the 11Ghz secondary license is available it would probably never be allowed on our network. Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down? Yes, a larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it. Do it right the first time and forget about it. Granted, there is always the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary licensed links are for the birds. The barrier to entry as you call it is a good thing! We are, after all, talking about licensed links and not UL. Why risk having diptidos screw up even more RF space. grin I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher standard. The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough. I'll pay more for a better product and more piece of mind. Best,
Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?
*nods* DECT is a cordless phone protocol that operates in its own band. It's just recently starting to catch on here in the states, but it has been quite popular in Europe. It's very advanced too... you can have repeaters, multiple APs, etc kinda like WIFI, but for phones. -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz? Hi, I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz??? Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the interference free cordless frequency. Travis Microserv 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] heavy usage customers
lol Travis Johnson wrote: Separate pockets, same pair of pants. Travis Microserv Matt wrote: Nothing, if you own the fiber. I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate? Matt We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP. So no latency to speak of there. From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get. Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site. How much does that cost? 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] OT election results
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Sam Tetherow wrote: I will bring this back on topic by bringing up the FCC seats that will change with the new administration. Does anyone have any thoughts on who will get appointed to the FCC and what effect it will have on us? I have my hopes...I don't have a good guess as to who will run the FCC. It'll have an impact for sure, as the current FCC decided to forgo the opportunity to finalize things for the TVWS. They made a big part of the choice (we can use it)...they left some of the details to the new recruits. -- * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* * http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering * * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member * * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * 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/
