Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153
Rick, Pleased to give you WSI's opinion and comments re WISPA's Reply Comments WT Docket 10-153. Section I. Reject FiberTower's Proposal Well stated and WSI is in full agreement. Section II. Shared Spectrum WSI agrees. Section III. Adaptive Modulation By agreeing with Verizon and Comsearch et al, who are proposing unnecessary regulation based on a false premise and an incorrect reading the rules, you are supporting regulation that would unnecessarily deny service or increase the cost of service. See slides 20 and 34 of the attached Power Point slides from WSI's December 8, 2010 ex parte meetings with the FCC. Section IV. Auxiliary Stations WSI agrees but we would have added the key items of smaller antenna size and lower costs. Section V. Smaller Antennas Agree on the need for smaller antennas but small (less than 4ft at 11GHz and 6ft at 6GHz) antennas for frequencies at and below 13GHz can only be used on short paths for good availability numbers. Also, if patterned after the 11GHz rules every path would block very large numbers of future paths. Therefore, WSI believes these short paths should be auxiliary paths where even at 6GHz the antennas can be any size that works (1ft, 2ft) and no future paths will be blocked by the auxiliary stations. WSI's Comments to the NPRM/NOI, Page 8, and Review of Part 101 Antenna Standards are given below: In Section 101.115 of the Rules the Commission wisely specifies the electrical requirements that must be met but not how the electrical requirements are to be met, thereby promoting innovation. As noted in this NOI, smaller antennas have several advantages for carriers and consumers; however, the advantages from the use of smaller antennas should not come at the expense of wasting spectrum, but should come from innovation. For example, this NPRM is proposing to allow the use of very small antennas on auxiliary stations (for example 1ft. antennas at 6GHz) without causing any interference to existing licensees or future applicants. Therefore, WSI strongly recommends that any revision to the antenna rules facilitate innovation as the means to promote more efficient and cost effective use of spectrum. Thank you for asking for our comments, I hope they are useful. Best, Mike From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153 Mike, Where to you fall in with WISPA's Reply Comments.http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020921272. I would love to hear your honest opinions, criticisms or supportive statements. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of michael mulcay Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153 In my experience, significant growth opportunities occur in wireless when there is a regulatory change, a technology change, or both. The last major opportunity in backhaul and access occurred in the 1990's when, as stated in a previous post, Western Multiplex Corporation petitioned the FCC for a rule making and an immediate waiver of the rules pending a rule making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. When both were granted (with the 3 for 1 rule at 2.4GHz), Western Multiplex introduced the Lynx spread spectrum radio, a technology change in conventional backhaul and access. Western Multiplex grew rapidly and the regulatory and technology changes created the opportunities for entrepreneurs to start wireless internet service companies and the WISP industry was born. With the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket 10-153, to allow auxiliary stations and make it feasible for technologies used in Part 15 frequency bands to be used in Part 101 frequency bands below 13GHz, the scene is set for a dramatic decrease in the cost of provisioning Part 101 fixed service licensed backhaul and access, thereby presenting WISPs large and small with significant growth opportunities. I believe the questions for a WISP are: 1. Can I grow my business with the added ability to provide +100Mb licensed services at or near the cost of provisioning unlicensed service? I believe the answer is yes, as applications are requiring faster and faster speeds. 2. Are Part 101 frequencies below 13GHz available in my service area? I believe the answer is yes for most if not all WISPs. 3. Do I want to take control of my own destiny, that is, own exclusive-use spectrum so as not to be at the mercy of interference from others, as is the case when using unlicensed bands? I believe the answer is yes. 4. What do I have to lose or gain by filing an ex
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
Scriv, You were one of the few who immediately saw the potential benefits. Thanks for the help over the years. To answer your questions: 1. Wireless Strategies mission is to engineer, provision, lease and/or sell concurrently coordinated licensed microwave networks. 2. Concurrently coordinated spectrum will support FDD, TDD, FDD-TDMA or TDD-TDMA depending on the application. Therefore, all existing products and technologies that can support PTP, MPTP and PTMP applications can be used and WSI has no intellectual property interest in these products. In the 6GHz and 11GHz licensed bands there are many manufacturers that have FCC certified FDD equipment but only Exalt has FCC certified FDD and TDD equipment. For PTMP operation there are many product manufacturers with product in the unlicensed bands (Motorola, Proxim etc.) that I believe could simply be re-banded from the 5.8GHz band to the 5.9GHz to 6.4GHz band. So, the question that WISPs should ask their microwave equipment suppliers is: How soon after a ruling by the FCC to allow the use of auxiliary stations are they able to deliver equipment and what would be the price? 3. Regarding smart adaptive antennas, WSI deployed and operated a custom designed 6GHz smart adaptive antenna in Baltimore. OEM Comm., who recently joined WISPA, has a custom designed 11GHz adaptive antenna. However, we expect adaptive antennas to soon be available from several manufactures (with costs competitive with legacy CAT A antennas). Best, Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question I want to thank you gentlemen for taking the time here to debate these issues. I have been a proponent for concurrent coordination as proposed by Michael Mulcay for a few years now. Michael did an eloquent job of proposing these ideas before the WCAI around 2005 maybe? I was in the audience. The licensed players there did not really see anything novel about the opportunity. They blinked. Michael and I spent a great deal of time discussing many of the same concerns I have seen discussed here. I brought the concurrent coordination proposal before the WISPA FCC Committee at that time but saw much of the same lack of interest as was witnessed at the WCAI show where I had first heard about it directly from Michael. We blinked too. Now we see that we are finally starting to see some traction for concurrent coordination within WISPA. I feel that Jack Unger has done a good job of bringing this proposal before the committee and making sure the opportunity was clearly described and explained in a way that made sense to our members. Thank you for that Jack. You work hard for us and it is appreciated. I too see this as an all ships rise in higher waters type of proposal. WISPs are buying more and more licensed backhaul. Clearwire has stopped making their crazy 300 PCN requests in a day. The true opportunity here is for WISPs to take advantage of. It is one of the only ways we can sell a real metro-Ethernet style service with an SLA. We can be our own first customers too. No longer needing a dedicated backhaul to each individual rural tower would be a windfall in cost and logistics for WISPs who want to replace all their backhaul with something that is truly carrier-class. The only question I have left is who will be building gear that is legal to operate as a concurrently coordinated link radio once you get your RO in your favor? Will you, Michael Mulcay, be the sole beneficiary of licensing this technology? If yes then what are the terms by which existing manufacturers of licensed radios can buy a license of your intellectual property to include concurrently coordination into base stations and CPEs? If this detail has not been established then our support for you could easily turn into an incredible windfall for you and your company but may not really yield us anything of real value in the end. So Michael, I ask you, what is the status of the intellectual property license opportunity for concurrent coordination? Have any manufactuers bought a license or have agreed to buy a l;icense to use your IP for this purpose? How much of a percentage of the total price of the product would we expect to pay for your IP as part of a base station? For a customer CPE? John Scrivner On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:02 PM, michael mulcay m...@wirelessstrategies.net wrote: Fred, Useful discussion, lets continue. I am guessing that in those cases, you didn't begin a presentation by putting a pointed set of insults (the whole obstructionism bit) into the Record. Your slide set might have been entertaining at a WISPA conference, or as a political broadside aimed at outsiders whose views of the FCC you wish to lower. But as a presentation to be mainly read by the professional staffers at the FCC, who
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
that make better use of spectrum (100 auxiliary paths instead of 100 primary paths), increase the value of that spectrum and leave more spectrum available for all new applicants. In this way everybody wins. I will again quote FCC Chairman Genachowski: We can't create more spectrum, so we have to make sure it's used efficiently. Nobody disagrees with that platitude. The question is how? You support one view, but your arguments were not well made. And from the PoV of the WISP community, there is risk as well as opportunity. What risk? I see the risk as being opportunity lost. . Last but not least, auxiliary stations will give WISPs a significant business growth opportunity. I have a suspicion that much larger companies would be more likely to be the ones to win any battles here. I don't think so, as the FCC's rules on spectrum acquisition levels the playing field and also WISPs are better placed to be first to market in their service area with the same licensed service performance and, with their traditionally low overhead, they have an opportunity to beat the competition on price. What you are proposing is maintain the legacy approach, with all of its drawbacks. How will that conserve spectrum, dramatically lower the cost of licensed microwave backhaul and access, and benefit WISPs? You are suggesting a best-case outcome for a proposal that you have not argued for very well. I am suggesting that there may be better approaches, and that Tom has a point that your proposal could possibly backfire on the WISP community. There are those who fear change and those who embrace change. I believe there is a major opportunity for those WISPs who are willing to take it. The fear is that those who fail to be proactive will be left on the outside looking in. Mike From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 7:41 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question At 1/14/2011 01:31 AM, Michael Mulcay wrote: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary==_NextPart_000_0013_01CBB371.AEA7F3F0 Content-Language: en-us Fred, Tom DeReggi's comments were business-case based and constructive; basically exploring whether the Commission's NPRM on auxiliary stations would benefit the large operators or WISPs or both. In WSI's opinion the answer is both, but with WISPs getting the higher business growth percentage. Frankly, I do not see anything in your position that would benefit the WISP community. You do not know my position. What I was pointing out was twofold. One, your technique was bad; two, there are valid reasons (which Tom has spelled out well) to see the WSI position as not being a certain win for the WISP community. BTW I am not necessarily opposing all auxiliary-station use. But your presentation to the FCC doesn't make the case. Further, I have nearly thirty years of experience working with the FCC, initially with the Xerox XTEN filing, and later, at Western Multiplex as VP of Business Development I wrote the request for a Rule Making and an Immediate Waiver of the Rules pending a Rule Making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. Both were granted (with the 1 for 3 rule at 2.4GHz) and we were able to take Western Multiplex from the Living Dead (profitable with no growth) to a Star Performer (rapid profitable growth), growing the company by 25%, 50% and 100% in three consecutive years. I believe that auxiliary stations can give WISPs the same type of growth opportunity. I am guessing that in those cases, you didn't begin a presentation by putting a pointed set of insults (the whole obstructionism bit) into the Record. Your slide set might have been entertaining at a WISPA conference, or as a political broadside aimed at outsiders whose views of the FCC you wish to lower. But as a presentation to be mainly read by the professional staffers at the FCC, who are for the most part dedicated, competent people whose work is fettered by politics from above, it struck me as counterproductive. They do not want to be insulted. Most of my regulatory work is in the Part 51 area (mainly CLECs), which is predominantly political. What technical questions arise there are usually resolved on a political, not fact-based, basis, mainly as cover for an industry position. I still harbor some illusions that Part 101 and Part 15, to give two examples, are handled on a somewhat more honest basis, with technical rather than political judgement being most important. The current version of the old joke is that the FCC staff is 1500 lawyers and Stagg Newman, but I know there are really a few other engineers left to help keep Stagg sane. To be sure, WTB is rather politicized, and my own experiences with them are not so good, but a lot of that has to do with internal politics and silos. I think the auctioned spectrum
[WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153
In my experience, significant growth opportunities occur in wireless when there is a regulatory change, a technology change, or both. The last major opportunity in backhaul and access occurred in the 1990's when, as stated in a previous post, Western Multiplex Corporation petitioned the FCC for a rule making and an immediate waiver of the rules pending a rule making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. When both were granted (with the 3 for 1 rule at 2.4GHz), Western Multiplex introduced the Lynx spread spectrum radio, a technology change in conventional backhaul and access. Western Multiplex grew rapidly and the regulatory and technology changes created the opportunities for entrepreneurs to start wireless internet service companies and the WISP industry was born. With the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket 10-153, to allow auxiliary stations and make it feasible for technologies used in Part 15 frequency bands to be used in Part 101 frequency bands below 13GHz, the scene is set for a dramatic decrease in the cost of provisioning Part 101 fixed service licensed backhaul and access, thereby presenting WISPs large and small with significant growth opportunities. I believe the questions for a WISP are: 1. Can I grow my business with the added ability to provide +100Mb licensed services at or near the cost of provisioning unlicensed service? I believe the answer is yes, as applications are requiring faster and faster speeds. 2. Are Part 101 frequencies below 13GHz available in my service area? I believe the answer is yes for most if not all WISPs. 3. Do I want to take control of my own destiny, that is, own exclusive-use spectrum so as not to be at the mercy of interference from others, as is the case when using unlicensed bands? I believe the answer is yes. 4. What do I have to lose or gain by filing an ex parte letter in support of the FCC's NPRM to allow auxiliary stations? I believe that there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. I suggest that if you agree with the above that you file an ex parte letter in support of the FCC's proposal to allow the use of auxiliary stations. If any of you would like help composing and filing an ex parte letter please contact me off list and I will customize one for you and help with an electronic filing (it takes less than two minutes). I believe that the FCC's NPRM re auxiliary stations represents a golden growth opportunity. Thanks, Mike Wireless Strategies Inc. m...@wirelessstrategies.net Direct: 831-659-5618 Mobile: 831-601-0086 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] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
Matt, As you can see, I strongly believe that the FCC proposed rulemaking to allow the use of auxiliary stations would be good for the wireless industry and especially for WISPs. Thanks, Mike From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Matt Larsen - Lists Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 11:43 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Wow Michael, That was an outstanding post. Thank you for taking the time to put it together. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com On 1/13/2011 11:31 PM, michael mulcay wrote: Fred, Tom DeReggi's comments were business-case based and constructive; basically exploring whether the Commission's NPRM on auxiliary stations would benefit the large operators or WISPs or both. In WSI's opinion the answer is both, but with WISPs getting the higher business growth percentage. Frankly, I do not see anything in your position that would benefit the WISP community. Further, I have nearly thirty years of experience working with the FCC, initially with the Xerox XTEN filing, and later, at Western Multiplex as VP of Business Development I wrote the request for a Rule Making and an Immediate Waiver of the Rules pending a Rule Making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. Both were granted (with the 1 for 3 rule at 2.4GHz) and we were able to take Western Multiplex from the Living Dead (profitable with no growth) to a Star Performer (rapid profitable growth), growing the company by 25%, 50% and 100% in three consecutive years. I believe that auxiliary stations can give WISPs the same type of growth opportunity. I believe your last paragraph summarizes your view, so I will address this paragraph. But Part 101 is all about using conventional means. Wrong -- Part 101Fixed Service rules are about the use of spectrum for Fixed Services, fortunately not about conventional means as this would preclude innovation. .(narrow beams, narrow bands) to squeeze in as many PtP users as possible via coordination, not auctions. There are two problems with the conventional approach: 1. Narrower and narrower beams mean larger and larger antennas with the related dramatic increases in CAPEX and OPEX, and even then they are still not perfect. 2. The FS market requirement is for higher and higher speeds requiring higher and higher bandwidths, not narrower and narrower bandwidths. It works pretty well. Actually it works very poorly as demonstrated by the difficulty of Prior Coordinating new 6GHz and 11GHz paths in cities such as New York and Los Angeles. The reason for the congestion is that every licensed station is given protection from harmful interference and all antennas radiate and receive signals in all directions, hence the reason for Rule 101.103 and the large antennas are a major contributor to the high cost of conventional licensed microwave links. As some of the Reply Comments noted, the alleged keyhole for auxiliary stations doesn't really exist very often. The keyhole has nothing to do with auxiliary stations as it is a contour around any station for a given interferer. Prior coordination requires that a new applicant check the EIRP at all angles around the proposed stations for all distances up to 125 miles at angles between five and three hundred and fifty five degrees, and at all distances up to 250 miles for all angles within five degrees of the antenna azimuth. This means that there are a very large number of locations around existing paths where a new applicant path cannot be deployed because the new path would cause harmful interference, and as the distance from the new applicant to an existing path or paths decreases, the number of choices for the new applicant path also decreases to the point where a new path at any angle will not prior coordinate. With a conventional approach these locations are unused, they are wasted. But with auxiliary stations the existing licensee can put the unused locations to productive use. But TDD and FDD also risk compatibility problems, and most of Part 101 is FDD, while your proposal is TDD. Wrong -- there are no compatibility problems using TDD in areas where FDD is operating, since a TDD path must prior coordinate before a license will be issued. Also, there is nothing preventing an auxiliary path from operating FDD, TDD, FDD-TDMA or TDD-TDMA. So it might make more sense to push for more spectrum elsewhere, rather than use self-defeating hyperbole to fight Part 101 interests head-on. I will again quote FCC Chairman Genachowski: We can't create more spectrum, so we have to make sure it's used efficiently. So, why are you proposing that we do not challenge the big companies who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo? The facts are these: Spectrum is a finite precious national resource. Every month thousands of new licenses are issued
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
are proposing is maintain the legacy approach, with all of its drawbacks. How will that conserve spectrum, dramatically lower the cost of licensed microwave backhaul and access, and benefit WISPs? Mike Wireless Strategies Inc. From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:34 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question At 1/13/2011 02:40 PM, Michael Mulcay wrote: ... The FCC committee was correct as spectrum is the life blood of all WISPs and conservation of spectrum is absolutely essential. Of course. I read your presentation, and some of the Reply Comments and other parties' views. So please take my criticism as constructive. You shot yourself in the foot with your opening pages. The whole routine about obstructionism, and the stories about cars being disassembled near animals, serves to alienate you from the skilled technical people at the FCC who have to make these decisions. Part 101 is not as politically charged as, say, Part 51. Your story could easily be construed as an insult. In fact it is hard to construe it otherwise. This doesn't win cases. (Do you see this as being how it's taken? Aw, he called me a name. I guess I'll have to adopt his position, so he doesn't call me a name again.) FCC submissions, including WISPAs, are normally very diplomatic. Second, your repeated references to millions of paths being lost are clearly hyperbole. Yes, technically, there could be a zillion paths, but the demand for any one of those paths is miniscule. The only ones that matter are the ones that people will use. There are essentially three types of path. Fixed point-to-point paths, fixed point-to-multipoint, and mobile. Part 101 is about the first category. WISPs usually deal in the second. CMRS is about the third. Auxiliary stations are essentially a way to turn Part 101 into what it isn't, fixed point-to-multipoint. Now I *do* agree that the FCC has set aside too little spectrum below 28 GHz for that purpose. IIRC there was once a 10 GHz allocation, based on the 1980ish Petition of Xerox for what they were planning to call XTEN but abandoned. This was called Digital Termination Systems and I don't know if any such licensing still exists, but it was narrowband. I have a slide set here from 1982 from a company (LDD) that was building a 10 GHz DTS PtMP system called RAPAC, which shared technology with their other product, the CAPAC -- probably the first cable modem! But they tanked. I think the MMDS-BRS band is authorized for PtMP, but licensed/auctioned, making it inaccessible. So I do see the need. But Part 101 is all about using conventional means (narrow beams, narrow bands) to squeeze in as many PtP users as possible via coordination, not auctions. It works pretty well. As some of the Reply Comments noted, the alleged keyhole for auxiliary stations doesn't really exist very often; with high-performance (good F/B ratio) antennas and modest transmitter power (70 dBm EIRP, 1 W TPO), back-to-back stations can coexist. But TDD and FDD also risk compatibility problems, and most of Part 101 is FDD, while your proposal is TDD. So it might make more sense to push for more spectrum elsewhere, rather than use self-defeating hyperbole to fight Part 101 interests head-on. -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
Adaptive modulation is the subject of an FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153. Can you lock the equipment in a non adaptive mode? Mike Wireless Strategies Inc 831-601-0086 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 2:46 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Comsearch has this to say on one of the sites in coordination, anyone know what it is supposed to mean? They are closed now, I'm not being patient sry :) Path Warnings Document FCC Rule Part(s) Description Result / Action N/A site1 Radio Equipped with Adaptive Modulation. Review Radio Parameters N/A site2 Radio Equipped with Adaptive Modulation. Review Radio Parameters 101.31 (b) (1) (ii) site1 - ASR may be required based on C/L Height. Verify/Change Antenna Height or File with FAA N/A site1 Failed Glide Slope or Height requirement. Verify/Change Antenna Height or File with FAA Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 http://www.flhsi.com/files/emaillogo.jpg 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] Interference on 11GHz
Give a spectrum management company (Comsearch, WAC etc) your site info and have them do an interference search. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of can...@believewireless.net Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 2:04 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Interference on 11GHz Anyone know who we would contact at the FCC to help determine what is causing us interference on our 11GHz link? Seems to have started as soon as Clear started putting a ton of 11GHz gear on one of our broadcast points. They are saying they conducted a study and no interference was found. 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] Couple more questions for the 11Ghz folks
Scott, For a 30 mile path in Florida with a 40dB fade margin the outage is predicted to be in excess of 20 hours. About 12 miles is the max I would use. Mike 831-659-5618 -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:07 PM To: Travis Johnson; wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Couple more questions for the 11Ghz folks I guess my question would be whether the 6Ghz difference between 5gig and 11gig is as much different from 11gig to 18gig... Seams to me just guessing that 11gig and 18gig would act very differently for rain fade but then again I'm without any experience on either so I'm just probing for answers... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 From: Travis Johnson t...@ida.net Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:58 PM To: sc...@brevardwireless.com, WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Subject: Re: [WISPA] Couple more questions for the 11Ghz folks Hi, I assume you have had path analysis done already? Like by Trango or Dragonwave or whomever equipment you are considering for this project? What do their numbers show for availability? Honestly, a 30 mile link using 11ghz in Florida seems a little scary to me. I have some 18ghz links using a 4ft and 2ft dish going 32 miles and we experience rain-fade during our heavy rain storms... and considering we are technically in a desert climate, it makes me wonder about your links. (BTW, that's with my link running at the lowest modulation already, and they still drop out during the heavy storms). Travis Microserv Scott Carullo wrote: Spending over 10K for a link (or anything for that matter) causes me to do a bit more homework than usual when I'm dealing with something I am not familiar with So more questions... Thanks ahead for your time I appreciate any info provided. Looking for generic 11Ghz answers - not related specifically to any manufacturer. Two links in question, one 20 miles and one 30 miles. 18db output 40.4 db dish (4ft) 900ft tower to 300ft tower both instances 900ft tower in middle with one link east one west. Calculations show just under 700 watts EIRP How much is the rain going to affect me... I have no experience with 11Ghz and would really like a firm grasp on what happens to my link(s) when the rain starts. I understand the Trango Apex which I'm looking at can dynamically adjust speeds to account for some fade - exactly how much I'm not sure. Any real world info would really help me at this point. I guess I'm looking for good news :) but I need to hear the bad as well if it is reality. Next question is for temp inversions. I have never had equipment higher than about 350ft so the 900ft is a bit new for me. I'm assuming that the angle different from going from 300ft to 300ft vs. 900ft to 300ft would be a small portion of a degree difference so I'm not expecting anything different here. Confirm this really won't make a difference for me as I suspect... I'm not going over much water, just St. Johns river mostly marsh but it does cause differences in temp above the water. Does 11Ghz behave the same as 5Ghz for inversions? Worse, better? 5Ghz around here sways a lot actually if you look at RSSI graphs. Anything else I might want to know, understand, be warned about etc? Remember back to your first 10K + link :) That's me now... Scott Carullo Brevard Wireless 321-205-1100 x102 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] 5.8GHz Link Loss
Guys, I think you have a classic case of multipath fading. The things to check are: 1. Is there enough fade margin to achieve the desired availability (99.98% - 99.998%)? 2. Is the first Fresnel Zone blocked 40% at K = 4/3? 3. Is the reflection point as close to one end as possible? Is it blocked? If you send me the following I will do a path analysis for you. Antenna gain at both ends, dBi Cable loss at both ends, dB Tx power output, dBm Rx sensitivity at BER = 10-6 Antenna height at both ends, AMSL in feet Path length in miles Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 10:31 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8GHz Link Loss We're still guessing here. He's never told us how LONG the links are. If they are 10 miles apart it's probably not ducting. marlon - Original Message - From: Mike m...@aweiowa.com To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:57 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 5.8GHz Link Loss The way I understand it, and have worked to my advantage as a ham, is the layers stratify at fairly definite borders in tropospheric ducting. The layer works more like a duct with a mirror like top. The signals can be repeatedly reflected back down into the duct. I did some experiments during one tropo opening using some long circular polarized yagis at both vhf and uhf. The signals appear to become more randomly polarized as the distance in the duct increases. The signals coming from areas around the Gulf coming into SW Fl during the events had components of both vertical and horizontal polarization. Refraction is the deflection of a wave on passing obliquely from one transparent medium into a second medium in which its speed is different. So, both upon entering and leaving the duct the signal can also be subject to refraction? Not sure. Mike At 10:52 AM 8/9/2009, you wrote: That is correct. So my next question: Can refraction be caused by thermal ducting? -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/
[WISPA] FCC Public Notice
For those interested in WSI's request to the FCC for a declaratory ruling, there is additional information on the web site (www.wirelessstrategies.net http://www.wirelessstrategies.net/ ) under FCC Public Notice. Mike Would you like to see your advertisement here? Let the WISPA Board know your feelings about allowing advertisements on the free WISPA lists. The current Board is taking this under consideration at this time. We want to know your thoughts. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice
Tom/Charles The whole objective is to increase the effective use of spectrum under the existing rules. NO WAIVERS, NO RULE CHANGES and NO INCREASED INTERFERENCE. To maintain the existing frequency coordination efficiencies the path antennas must meet CAT A (or B) and their size will be large. It is the wasted side lobe radiation that can be put to productive use with subordinated paths where the radiation from the Distributed Radiating Elements (DREs) at the input to any victim receiver is always below the coordinated interference or 6dB below the victim receiver's thermal noise. The size shape etc of the DRE can be any size or shape (small) providing all the network criteria is satisfied. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice I'd also add, I'm not certain everyone wants the antenna beamwidth requirements waived on these protected bands. I HIGHLY support NOT lowering the antenna size requirement for 11Ghz, as anything smaller than its at today, just compromises long haul backhaul applications, in which WISPs do not have many option for long haul. At 8-10 miles, a couple extra Degrees of beamwidth is capable of interfering with a much wide length of area in the city effected. Although, I'd like to see 6Ghz lowered to 4 ft dishes. There isn't a landlord in their right mind that would allow a 6 ft antenna installed on their roof. Or maybe a nicely designed 3 ft model, possibly acceptable. Not that I'm not for concurrent coordination. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Charles Wu [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice But what about the 36 / 38 dBi antenna rule for 4 6 GHz? The SIA is all over Fibertower's 2' request in 11 GHz...imagine 4 GHz, which could knock out a lot of C-band downlinks (now, not being a satellite expert, I'm not sure of the current usage of this channel, but being that the SIA has tons of , I'm sure they'll raise up a storm) That said, I think you need to get the antenna beamwidth requirements waives / relaxed first...even if concurrent coordination passes, I don't think anyone will want to be installing 6' dishes on people's houses... -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of michael mulcay Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:09 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice Charles, The request for a declaratory ruling applies to all frequency bands. The bands of immediate interest are 3.7 to 4.2GHz and 5.9 to 6.4GHz (an easy freq change for WiMax, 3.5GHz to 4GHz band and 5.8GHz to 6GHz band)where the subordinated link antenna sizes drop from 8ft and 6ft to as low as 1ft flat panel. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charles Wu Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 5:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice Wouldn't you be better off lowering antenna size requirement for the 3.7 GHz band first? No one (specifically WiMAX) is going to make anything cheap for 18 or 23 GHz -Charles --- WiNOG Wireless Roadshows Coming to a City Near You http://www.winog.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of michael mulcay Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:12 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice Last week the FCC1 issued a Public Notice seeking comments on Wireless Strategies request for a declaratory ruling regarding (concurrent) coordination of microwave links under Part 101 of the Commission's rules. The amount of microwave spectrum is finite and it is in everyone's interest to seek ways to increase the effective use the existing spectrum. Unfortunately, there may be those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and who will attempt to stifle innovation. Innovation is one of the few ways that small companies can compete with large established companies and that is why we believe this is a one time opportunity for WISPs to join the big league as regards the ability to obtain licensed spectrum which can support low cost 802.16-based (WiMax) equipment with small antenna elements to provide licensed backhaul and broadband services to hundreds of additional subscribers, through frequency reuse without causing any additional harmful interference. It would be a great help if WISPA as a group and individual WISPs file comments in support of the request for a declaratory ruling, especially as there is everything to gain and nothing to lose
[WISPA] FCC Public Notice
Last week the FCC1 issued a Public Notice seeking comments on Wireless Strategies request for a declaratory ruling regarding (concurrent) coordination of microwave links under Part 101 of the Commission's rules. The amount of microwave spectrum is finite and it is in everyone's interest to seek ways to increase the effective use the existing spectrum. Unfortunately, there may be those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and who will attempt to stifle innovation. Innovation is one of the few ways that small companies can compete with large established companies and that is why we believe this is a one time opportunity for WISPs to join the big league as regards the ability to obtain licensed spectrum which can support low cost 802.16-based (WiMax) equipment with small antenna elements to provide licensed backhaul and broadband services to hundreds of additional subscribers, through frequency reuse without causing any additional harmful interference. It would be a great help if WISPA as a group and individual WISPs file comments in support of the request for a declaratory ruling, especially as there is everything to gain and nothing to lose. The Comment deadline is July 19, 2007. Comments can be filed via the FCC's ECFS or by regular mail. Details are on the FCC's web site. Thanks in advance, Mike 1. FCC links: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2697A1.txt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice
Felix, Yes, a Citizen at Large can provide comment and the concept of public-private networks with WISPs would make a very powerful argument in support. Thanks Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix A. Lopez Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 9:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC Public Notice Mike - Can Citizens at Large provide comment too? I am involved in volunteer wireless project for a local school district in my area. The CTO is always seeking ways to do wireless on a limited budget. We already have problems with interference in a confined urban space and hypothesized a licenced 802.16 with a local WiSP network would help define a public-private network for the students. It is just hypothetical but I can see the reasoning in support of comments for this declaration at the FCC. Any thoughts apreciated. Felix Wireless Practioneer --- michael mulcay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last week the FCC1 issued a Public Notice seeking comments on Wireless Strategies request for a declaratory ruling regarding (concurrent) coordination of microwave links under Part 101 of the Commission's rules. The amount of microwave spectrum is finite and it is in everyone's interest to seek ways to increase the effective use the existing spectrum. Unfortunately, there may be those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and who will attempt to stifle innovation. Innovation is one of the few ways that small companies can compete with large established companies and that is why we believe this is a one time opportunity for WISPs to join the big league as regards the ability to obtain licensed spectrum which can support low cost 802.16-based (WiMax) equipment with small antenna elements to provide licensed backhaul and broadband services to hundreds of additional subscribers, through frequency reuse without causing any additional harmful interference. It would be a great help if WISPA as a group and individual WISPs file comments in support of the request for a declaratory ruling, especially as there is everything to gain and nothing to lose. The Comment deadline is July 19, 2007. Comments can be filed via the FCC's ECFS or by regular mail. Details are on the FCC's web site. Thanks in advance, Mike 1. FCC links: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2697A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2697A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2697A1.txt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless
John, This is probably the only opportunity the small guys (WISPs) will have to compete on an even playing field with the big guys for spectrum that supports WiMax products. The first step is a favorable ruling from the FCC and then the filing of a standard application for a Part 101 license. We are told that the equipment cost per subordinated path will be less than $500 and FCC certified equipment will be available ninety days after a favorable FCC ruling WSI would be please to discuss technical details, business strategies and the enormous opportunities of concurrent coordination with any WISP off list. Mike -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 6:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless Mike, If we support your request for declaratory ruling what steps would be required for us to get our own licensed multipoint Part 101 based network deployment in our areas? What equipment is available now if any? What are the costs? How do you make money on this type of deal? I want to understand the logistics of actually using this in my network if we get the go ahead to do so. Many thanks, John Scrivner michael mulcay wrote: Concurrently coordinated networks are Licensed Carrier Grade, which means we no longer have to take second place to the big guys. Wireless Strategies Inc (WSI) decided to focus on carrier grade backhaul where we believe the GPM is higher and the COS lower than for the home subscriber market. The $500 number was for 802.16 based CPE and was a conservative number. My guess is that 802.16 product prices will end up similar to 802.11 prices. We budget conservatively and plan for a Part 101 license to cost about $2500 with another $2500 for the Prior Coordination. For this we have enough spectrum (60MHz at 6GHz) to serve hundreds of clients. The throughput is 134Mbps burstable to 268Mbps. I agree that asking the FCC for a rule change or a waiver would be difficult, especially to get the FCC allow one foot antennas. That is why NO RULE CHANGE OR WAIVER IS NEEDED. We engineered paths in a city that could support legacy and concurrently coordinated networks, applied for and have received licenses. To remove any uncertainty that an antenna system with radiating elements (it is the radiating elements that can have any type or size of radiator), is allowed UNDER EXISTING RULES, we sent a Request for a Declaratory Ruling to the FCC asking for confirmation that any antenna system, and specifically an antenna system with radiating elements, that meets all the present regulations is allowed. I would be pleased to send you individual copies of the request. Our concern is that the big guys will make a land grab for spectrum before the small, and often under funded, operators have staked their claim. For most investors to put money into network construction they want all perceived regulatory uncertainty removed. This is why we are asking the FCC to remove any uncertainty. Mike 831-659-5618 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless I talked to Mike for quite a while the other day. I think this idea warrants some discussion. On the one hand, the idea that we can use the cheap, arguably underutilized 6 gig band for licensed ptmp links has some draw for me. It's also an idea that the FCC has already hinted at a year or three ago (SPTF maybe???). On the other hand, any licensed bands seem to almost always wind up in the hands of people that don't deploy with it. At least not broadband. And, as our tower sites get ever more loaded with the access points needed to service customers, many of us will likely eventually move to licensed bands for backhaul. It would be a shame to not have licensed ptp only spectrum available. Well, it could easily become a shame laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: michael mulcay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless Guys, As we wireless operators know, the costs of licensed networks (equipment, antennas and licensing) makes providing services to the majority of subscribers prohibitively expensive, and the cost at auction for spectrum (for WiMax and 4G products) is beyond the reach of most of us. To overcome these problems, two years ago Wireless Strategies began research into ways to use new technologies -- WiMAX and smart antennas -- to reuse
RE: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless
Concurrently coordinated networks are Licensed Carrier Grade, which means we no longer have to take second place to the big guys. Wireless Strategies Inc (WSI) decided to focus on carrier grade backhaul where we believe the GPM is higher and the COS lower than for the home subscriber market. The $500 number was for 802.16 based CPE and was a conservative number. My guess is that 802.16 product prices will end up similar to 802.11 prices. We budget conservatively and plan for a Part 101 license to cost about $2500 with another $2500 for the Prior Coordination. For this we have enough spectrum (60MHz at 6GHz) to serve hundreds of clients. The throughput is 134Mbps burstable to 268Mbps. I agree that asking the FCC for a rule change or a waiver would be difficult, especially to get the FCC allow one foot antennas. That is why NO RULE CHANGE OR WAIVER IS NEEDED. We engineered paths in a city that could support legacy and concurrently coordinated networks, applied for and have received licenses. To remove any uncertainty that an antenna system with radiating elements (it is the radiating elements that can have any type or size of radiator), is allowed UNDER EXISTING RULES, we sent a Request for a Declaratory Ruling to the FCC asking for confirmation that any antenna system, and specifically an antenna system with radiating elements, that meets all the present regulations is allowed. I would be pleased to send you individual copies of the request. Our concern is that the big guys will make a land grab for spectrum before the small, and often under funded, operators have staked their claim. For most investors to put money into network construction they want all perceived regulatory uncertainty removed. This is why we are asking the FCC to remove any uncertainty. Mike 831-659-5618 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 7:12 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless I talked to Mike for quite a while the other day. I think this idea warrants some discussion. On the one hand, the idea that we can use the cheap, arguably underutilized 6 gig band for licensed ptmp links has some draw for me. It's also an idea that the FCC has already hinted at a year or three ago (SPTF maybe???). On the other hand, any licensed bands seem to almost always wind up in the hands of people that don't deploy with it. At least not broadband. And, as our tower sites get ever more loaded with the access points needed to service customers, many of us will likely eventually move to licensed bands for backhaul. It would be a shame to not have licensed ptp only spectrum available. Well, it could easily become a shame laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: michael mulcay [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:23 PM Subject: [WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless Guys, As we wireless operators know, the costs of licensed networks (equipment, antennas and licensing) makes providing services to the majority of subscribers prohibitively expensive, and the cost at auction for spectrum (for WiMax and 4G products) is beyond the reach of most of us. To overcome these problems, two years ago Wireless Strategies began research into ways to use new technologies -- WiMAX and smart antennas -- to reuse side lobe radiation around sites of point-to-point 4GHz and 6GHz microwave links under the present FCC rules and without causing additional interference. Our finding is that networks can be designed to operate with smart antennas with distributed radiators and that the new paths can be concurrently coordinated, under existing FCC rules and without causing additional interference. We believe that concurrent coordination will be The Next Big Thing in Wireless, leveling the playing field by making it possible for WISPs to obtain multipurpose licensed spectrum at pennies on the dollar compared to obtaining it at auction. By making use of the formerly wasted side lobe radiation of 4GHz and 6GHz paths, WISPs will be able to use IEEE 802.16-based (WiMAX) equipment with small antennas to provide licensed broadband services to hundreds of additional subscribers at a provisioning cost of only about $500 per link. We appreciate that some members of the industry may initially perceive any change to the status quo as a threat, but we believe that concurrent coordination will provide extraordinary benefits to the entire industry, especially WISPs. Due to the potential for unprecedented industry-wide changes from the use of antennas with distributed radiators to provide
[WISPA] The Next Big Thing in Wireless
Guys, As we wireless operators know, the costs of licensed networks (equipment, antennas and licensing) makes providing services to the majority of subscribers prohibitively expensive, and the cost at auction for spectrum (for WiMax and 4G products) is beyond the reach of most of us. To overcome these problems, two years ago Wireless Strategies began research into ways to use new technologies -- WiMAX and smart antennas -- to reuse side lobe radiation around sites of point-to-point 4GHz and 6GHz microwave links under the present FCC rules and without causing additional interference. Our finding is that networks can be designed to operate with smart antennas with distributed radiators and that the new paths can be concurrently coordinated, under existing FCC rules and without causing additional interference. We believe that concurrent coordination will be The Next Big Thing in Wireless, leveling the playing field by making it possible for WISPs to obtain multipurpose licensed spectrum at pennies on the dollar compared to obtaining it at auction. By making use of the formerly wasted side lobe radiation of 4GHz and 6GHz paths, WISPs will be able to use IEEE 802.16-based (WiMAX) equipment with small antennas to provide licensed broadband services to hundreds of additional subscribers at a provisioning cost of only about $500 per link. We appreciate that some members of the industry may initially perceive any change to the status quo as a threat, but we believe that concurrent coordination will provide extraordinary benefits to the entire industry, especially WISPs. Due to the potential for unprecedented industry-wide changes from the use of antennas with distributed radiators to provide multiple-path low-cost broadband services under the existing FCC rules, Wireless Strategies decided to remove any uncertainty for investors and service providers by, on February 23, 2007, filing with the Federal Communications Commission, a Request for a Declaratory Ruling on Compliance of Fixed Microwave Antennas Having Distributed Radiating Elements. However, to date, the FCC has taken no action. We believe that emails of support from the WISP community can help speed up the process, by encouraging the FCC to either issue the requested declaratory ruling or to issue a Public Notice for industry comment. Therefore, if you would like a copy of our FCC filing and/or information about the new concept of concurrent coordination, please contact me at Wireless Strategies 831-659-5618 or [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional information you can also visit our web site at www.wirelessstrategies.net. Thanks, Mike Michael Mulcay, CEO Wireless Strategies, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
