Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Fred Goldstein]

At 11/18/2010 02:07 AM, Tom Reggi wrote:

OOps. looks like the HTML tables were lost in transmission.
To translate no channels were available. except for 4 of if at 40mw..


Would channels have been available if you were below the 75 meter limit?

I'm seriously thinking of writing a Petition for Rulemaking to amend 
that 75 meter rule, basing lower power limits on the chart in the 
rules used for broadcasters to adjust ERP based on HAAT.



 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Tom DeReggi]

OOps. looks like the HTML tables were lost in transmission.
To translate no channels were available. except for 4 of if at 40mw..

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


  - Original Message - 
  From: Tom DeReggi 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes


  WOW you are lucky Checkout my availabilty, in the one area I was hoping 
  to have atleast one channel, which is an agricultural reserve full of tall 
  trees

  Available Channels
  Fixed TVBD < 10m
  HAAT: 128.75 meters

  View Full Map


 2
19
36

 3
20
37

 4
21
38

 5
22
39

 6
23
40

 7
24
41

 8
25
42

 9
26
43

 10
27
44

 11
28
45

 12
29
46

 13
30
47

 14
31
48

 15
32
49

 16
33
50

 17
34
51

 18
35




  HAAT also appears to be a killer preventing use in areas of rolling hills w/ 
  trees, most needy of 700Mhz.
  When in many cased Downtilt could have been a viable solutions, in some 
  bands.

  But, hey, thank god for rules that helped low power personal portable 
  devices.
  At 40mw max, I might be able to use 3-4 channels.

   19
  36

   3
  20
  37

   4
  21
  38

   5
  22
  39

   6
  23
  40

   7
  24
  41

   8
  25
  42

   9
  26
  43

   10
  27
  44

   11
  28
  45

   12
  29
  46

   13
  30
  47

   14
  31
  48

   15
  32
  49

   16
  33
  50

   17
  34
  51

   18
  35




  So, 40mw can get me a few feet away, maybe to the ground of the tower  :-(

  BUT thats why BRianWebster's idea of Dual antenna radios (one for high gain 
  for recieve and one low gain for transmit) could be the savior.
  The ONLY possible useful use of the band would be to use such a radio.

  But will 40mw upper band channels be any better than 4watt 900mhz?

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


  - Original Message - 
  From: "Mike Hammett" 
  To: "WISPA General List" 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:23 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes


  > According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.  Assuming
  > their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.
  >
  > -
  > Mike Hammett
  > Intelligent Computing Solutions
  > http://www.ics-il.com
  >
  >
  > On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
  >> 8 Channels around here for me...
  >>
  >> 
http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
  >>
  >> Josh Luthman
  >> Office: 937-552-2340
  >> Direct: 937-552-2343
  >> 1100 Wayne St
  >> Suite 1337
  >> Troy, OH 45373
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves 
  >> wrote:
  >>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
  >>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
  >>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
  >>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
  >>>
  >>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
  >>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
  >>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
  >>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
  >>>
  >>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett 
  >>> wrote:
  >>>>   That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
  >>>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
  >>>>
  >>>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double 
  >>>> t

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Tom DeReggi]

WOW you are lucky Checkout my availabilty, in the one area I was hoping 
to have atleast one channel, which is an agricultural reserve full of tall 
trees


Available Channels
Fixed TVBD < 10m
HAAT: 128.75 meters

View Full Map


  2
 19
 36

  3
 20
 37

  4
 21
 38

  5
 22
 39

  6
 23
 40

  7
 24
 41

  8
 25
 42

  9
 26
 43

  10
 27
 44

  11
 28
 45

  12
 29
 46

  13
 30
 47

  14
 31
 48

  15
 32
 49

  16
 33
 50

  17
 34
 51

  18
 35




HAAT also appears to be a killer preventing use in areas of rolling hills w/ 
trees, most needy of 700Mhz.
When in many cased Downtilt could have been a viable solutions, in some 
bands.


But, hey, thank god for rules that helped low power personal portable 
devices.

At 40mw max, I might be able to use 3-4 channels.

19
   36

3
   20
   37

4
   21
   38

5
   22
   39

6
   23
   40

7
   24
   41

8
   25
   42

9
   26
   43

10
   27
   44

11
   28
   45

12
   29
   46

13
   30
   47

14
   31
   48

15
   32
   49

16
   33
   50

17
   34
   51

18
   35




So, 40mw can get me a few feet away, maybe to the ground of the tower  :-(

BUT thats why BRianWebster's idea of Dual antenna radios (one for high gain 
for recieve and one low gain for transmit) could be the savior.

The ONLY possible useful use of the band would be to use such a radio.

But will 40mw upper band channels be any better than 4watt 900mhz?

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" 

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:23 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes



According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.  Assuming
their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:

8 Channels around here for me...

http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves 
wrote:

That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.

Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett 
wrote:

  That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
you're going to have to find several channels together.

With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double 
that.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:

Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
or will you need to pick 3 or 4?

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis 
wrote:

It is broke.  Usehttp://www.spectrumbridge.com  instead.



Josh Luthman wrote:

I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
wrong?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie 
Reeves

wrote:


Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does 
not
have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on 
channels
jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' 
always

results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
bing map of the location, and all buttons (ex

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Mike Hammett]

According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.  Assuming 
their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> 8 Channels around here for me...
>
> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves  
> wrote:
>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>>
>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett  
>> wrote:
>>>   That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
>>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>>>
>>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
 or will you need to pick 3 or 4?

 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Daviswrote:
> It is broke.  Usehttp://www.spectrumbridge.com  instead.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> wrong?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
> wrote:
>
>
> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> back to the default. Any ideas?
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
> wrote:
>
>
>http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
> 
> 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] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[Jack Unger]

  Jeromie,

A quick check of WISPA's billing survey did not turn up your name as a WISPA 
Member. If that is wrong and you are a Member then I warmly invite you to join 
the FCC Committee so you can provide your input and ideas regarding spectrum 
homesteading. If you are not a WISPA Member then I'm sorry but it would be 
improper to divulge FCC Committee Member discussions or documents to you. Feel 
free to give me a call or drop me an email offlist to discuss your options 
further.

Best Regards,

Jack Unger
Chair - WISPA FCC Committee


On 9/27/2010 9:20 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> What do you envision as a fair homesteading rule(s)? How do those
> rules deal with squatters, or people who do 'just enough' to keep
> others out? I am not completely against 'homesteading' but i am
> against 'squatting' and 'marginal acceptableness'. Do you have a
> document or such of your ideas on this?
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rick Harnish  wrote:
>> John,
>>
>> I personally support your work on Spectrum Homesteading and we hope to
>> develop it further.  Unfortunately, the FCC committee was split and thus, it
>> was the advice of the FCC Chairman that we could not support it at this time
>> until the proposal matures further or the education of the FCC Committee
>> changes the balance of ayes and nays.  I definitely don't think it is a dead
>> issue.  We need to discuss it more and help it mature, it is definitely
>> worthwhile to pursue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rick
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of John Scrivner
>>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:40 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step
>>>
>>> There is no "staking your claim". I pushed for that as part of a
>>> spectrum homesteading initiative which WISPA will not support...sadly.
>>> We probably had a good shot at it through all the lobbying efforts we
>>> did but the FCC Committee had people against the idea that building
>>> broadband service should entitle you to an exclusive license for your
>>> channel space in your coverage area. Opportunity lost...
>>> Scriv
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Forbes Mercy
>>>   wrote:
>>>>   OK so in my area there is a three channel space of 26,27 and, 28
>>>> available.  I guess my goal is to camp out on 27, knowing this how to
>>> I
>>>> stake the claim and start working toward deployment?  I know it's
>>>> oversimplified but that's where I have to start.
>>>>
>>>> Forbes
>>>>
>>>> On 9/25/2010 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>>> According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
>>>>> Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my
>>> time.
>>>>> 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>>>> 8 Channels around here for me...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-
>>> services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>>>>>> Josh Luthman
>>>>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>>>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>>>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>>>>> Suite 1337
>>>>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves>> 30chat.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a
>>> 10mhz
>>>>>>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>>>>>>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear
>>> it
>>>>>>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels.
>>> One
>>>>>>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>>>>>>> contours for that one and what kind of bondin

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[Jeromie Reeves]

What do you envision as a fair homesteading rule(s)? How do those
rules deal with squatters, or people who do 'just enough' to keep
others out? I am not completely against 'homesteading' but i am
against 'squatting' and 'marginal acceptableness'. Do you have a
document or such of your ideas on this?

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rick Harnish  wrote:
> John,
>
> I personally support your work on Spectrum Homesteading and we hope to
> develop it further.  Unfortunately, the FCC committee was split and thus, it
> was the advice of the FCC Chairman that we could not support it at this time
> until the proposal matures further or the education of the FCC Committee
> changes the balance of ayes and nays.  I definitely don't think it is a dead
> issue.  We need to discuss it more and help it mature, it is definitely
> worthwhile to pursue.
>
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of John Scrivner
>> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:40 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step
>>
>> There is no "staking your claim". I pushed for that as part of a
>> spectrum homesteading initiative which WISPA will not support...sadly.
>> We probably had a good shot at it through all the lobbying efforts we
>> did but the FCC Committee had people against the idea that building
>> broadband service should entitle you to an exclusive license for your
>> channel space in your coverage area. Opportunity lost...
>> Scriv
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Forbes Mercy
>>  wrote:
>> >  OK so in my area there is a three channel space of 26,27 and, 28
>> > available.  I guess my goal is to camp out on 27, knowing this how to
>> I
>> > stake the claim and start working toward deployment?  I know it's
>> > oversimplified but that's where I have to start.
>> >
>> > Forbes
>> >
>> > On 9/25/2010 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>> >>    According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
>> >> Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my
>> time.
>> >> 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> Mike Hammett
>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> >> http://www.ics-il.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> >>> 8 Channels around here for me...
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-
>> services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>> >>>
>> >>> Josh Luthman
>> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> >>> 1100 Wayne St
>> >>> Suite 1337
>> >>> Troy, OH 45373
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves> 30chat.net>   wrote:
>> >>>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a
>> 10mhz
>> >>>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>> >>>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear
>> it
>> >>>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels.
>> One
>> >>>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>> >>>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible.
>> Even
>> >>>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett> il.net>   wrote:
>> >>>>>    That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable
>> throughput
>> >>>>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might
>> double that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -
>> >>>>> Mike Hammett
>> >>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> >>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>&g

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[Rick Harnish]

John,

I personally support your work on Spectrum Homesteading and we hope to
develop it further.  Unfortunately, the FCC committee was split and thus, it
was the advice of the FCC Chairman that we could not support it at this time
until the proposal matures further or the education of the FCC Committee
changes the balance of ayes and nays.  I definitely don't think it is a dead
issue.  We need to discuss it more and help it mature, it is definitely
worthwhile to pursue.

Thanks,
Rick

> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of John Scrivner
> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 11:40 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step
> 
> There is no "staking your claim". I pushed for that as part of a
> spectrum homesteading initiative which WISPA will not support...sadly.
> We probably had a good shot at it through all the lobbying efforts we
> did but the FCC Committee had people against the idea that building
> broadband service should entitle you to an exclusive license for your
> channel space in your coverage area. Opportunity lost...
> Scriv
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Forbes Mercy
>  wrote:
> >  OK so in my area there is a three channel space of 26,27 and, 28
> > available.  I guess my goal is to camp out on 27, knowing this how to
> I
> > stake the claim and start working toward deployment?  I know it's
> > oversimplified but that's where I have to start.
> >
> > Forbes
> >
> > On 9/25/2010 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >>    According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
> >> Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my
> time.
> >> 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
> >>
> >> -
> >> Mike Hammett
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>> 8 Channels around here for me...
> >>>
> >>> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-
> services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
> >>>
> >>> Josh Luthman
> >>> Office: 937-552-2340
> >>> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >>> 1100 Wayne St
> >>> Suite 1337
> >>> Troy, OH 45373
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves 30chat.net>   wrote:
> >>>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a
> 10mhz
> >>>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
> >>>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear
> it
> >>>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
> >>>>
> >>>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels.
> One
> >>>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
> >>>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible.
> Even
> >>>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett il.net>   wrote:
> >>>>>    That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable
> throughput
> >>>>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might
> double that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> Mike Hammett
> >>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> >>>>>> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a
> row) like
> >>>>>> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard
> channels?
> >>>>>> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis
>     wrote:
> >>>>>>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I go 

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[Charles N Wyble]

  On 09/27/2010 08:40 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
> There is no "staking your claim". I pushed for that as part of a
> spectrum homesteading initiative which WISPA will not support...sadly.

Well isn't this what whitespaces is supposed to prevent? Large amounts 
of exclusive spectrum already exists and is owned by monopolies. Now I 
think that licensed lite would be good. The FCC licensing system can 
facilitate coordination among providers. Maybe we can get that in 
whitespace r&o 3.0? :)

> We probably had a good shot at it through all the lobbying efforts we
> did but the FCC Committee had people against the idea that building
> broadband service should entitle you to an exclusive license for your
> channel space in your coverage area.

Hmmm. So if the big money comes in and just buys up a bunch of licenses 
then what? You have to remember that the rules are a double edged sword. 
Anything that might help us protect against competition, can also be 
used by others to lock us out. Not a level playing field.

> Opportunity lost...
> Scriv
>




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] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[John Scrivner]

There is no "staking your claim". I pushed for that as part of a
spectrum homesteading initiative which WISPA will not support...sadly.
We probably had a good shot at it through all the lobbying efforts we
did but the FCC Committee had people against the idea that building
broadband service should entitle you to an exclusive license for your
channel space in your coverage area. Opportunity lost...
Scriv



On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Forbes Mercy
 wrote:
>  OK so in my area there is a three channel space of 26,27 and, 28
> available.  I guess my goal is to camp out on 27, knowing this how to I
> stake the claim and start working toward deployment?  I know it's
> oversimplified but that's where I have to start.
>
> Forbes
>
> On 9/25/2010 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>    According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
>> Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.
>> 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>>> 8 Channels around here for me...
>>>
>>> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves   
>>> wrote:
 That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
 channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
 people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
 just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.

 Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
 has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
 contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
 just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.

 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett   
 wrote:
>    That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>
> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
>> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
>> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis     
>> wrote:
>>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
>>> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
>>> wrong?
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
>>> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
>>> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
>>> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
>>> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
>>> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
>>> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
>>> back to the default. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>>>      wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>>
>>> Kind of cool I think...
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[Fred Goldstein]

At 9/27/2010 10:54 AM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
>   OK so in my area there is a three channel space of 26,27 and, 28
>available.  I guess my goal is to camp out on 27, knowing this how to I
>stake the claim and start working toward deployment?  I know it's
>oversimplified but that's where I have to start.

Unless I'm misreading the rules, White Space for WISPs is under Part 
15, unlicensed, and thus gets no protection.  Licensed (protected) 
wireless mics operate under a different rule (e.g., broadcast 
auxiliary service) which entitles them to protection.  So there is no 
claim-staking by WISPs; we will have to live together the way we do 
on 5.8 and the other unlicensed bands.

>Forbes
>
>On 9/25/2010 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> >According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
> > Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.
> > 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> >> 8 Channels around here for me...
> >>
> >> 
> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
> >>
> >> Josh Luthman
> >> Office: 937-552-2340
> >> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >> 1100 Wayne St
> >> Suite 1337
> >> Troy, OH 45373
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie 
> Reeves   wrote:
> >>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
> >>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
> >>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
> >>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
> >>>
> >>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
> >>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
> >>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
> >>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike 
> Hammett   wrote:
> That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
>  you're going to have to find several channels together.
> 
>  With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might 
> double that.
> 
>  -
>  Mike Hammett
>  Intelligent Computing Solutions
>  http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
>  On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> > Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
> > 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
> > or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
> >
> > On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair 
> Davis wrote:
> >> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Josh Luthman wrote:
> >>
> >> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> >> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> >> wrong?
> >>
> >> Josh Luthman
> >> Office: 937-552-2340
> >> Direct: 937-552-2343
> >> 1100 Wayne St
> >> Suite 1337
> >> Troy, OH 45373
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> >> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> >> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> >> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> >> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> >> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> >> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> >> back to the default. Any ideas?
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
> >>
> >> Kind of cool I think...
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> 
> >> 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
> >>
> >> Sub

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - Whats the next step

[Forbes Mercy]

  OK so in my area there is a three channel space of 26,27 and, 28 
available.  I guess my goal is to camp out on 27, knowing this how to I 
stake the claim and start working toward deployment?  I know it's 
oversimplified but that's where I have to start.

Forbes

On 9/25/2010 8:37 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
> Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.
> 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> 8 Channels around here for me...
>>
>> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves   
>> wrote:
>>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
>>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
>>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>>>
>>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
>>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
>>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett   
>>> wrote:
That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
 you're going to have to find several channels together.

 With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.

 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis wrote:
>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
>> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
>> wrong?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
>> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
>> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
>> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
>> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
>> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
>> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
>> back to the default. Any ideas?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>
>> Kind of cool I think...
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Philip Dorr]

According to that website channels 5-13 and a couple others, that are
only 2 channels wide, are available here, but unless the local TV
channels completely changed on the DTV switch 5 and 9 are in use.

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>  According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.
> Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.
> 6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
>> 8 Channels around here for me...
>>
>> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves  
>> wrote:
>>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
>>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
>>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>>>
>>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
>>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
>>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett  
>>> wrote:
   That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
 you're going to have to find several channels together.

 With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.

 -
 Mike Hammett
 Intelligent Computing Solutions
 http://www.ics-il.com



 On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis    wrote:
>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
>> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
>> wrong?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
>> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
>> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
>> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
>> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
>> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
>> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
>> back to the default. Any ideas?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>>     wrote:
>>
>>
>>    http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>
>> Kind of cool I think...
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Mike Hammett]

  According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.  
Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.  
6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> 8 Channels around here for me...
>
> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves  
> wrote:
>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>>
>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett  
>> wrote:
>>>   That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
>>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>>>
>>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
 or will you need to pick 3 or 4?

 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Daviswrote:
> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> wrong?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
> wrote:
>
>
> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> back to the default. Any ideas?
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
> wrote:
>
>
>http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
> 
> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Mike Hammett]

  According to that page, only 2, 5, and 6 are available for me.  
Assuming their data is correct, TVWS are almost not even worth my time.  
6 channels are reserved for wireless mics.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/25/2010 12:14 PM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> 8 Channels around here for me...
>
> http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves  
> wrote:
>> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
>> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
>> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
>> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>>
>> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
>> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
>> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
>> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett  
>> wrote:
>>>   That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
>>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>>>
>>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
 Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
 or will you need to pick 3 or 4?

 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Daviswrote:
> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> wrong?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
> wrote:
>
>
> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> back to the default. Any ideas?
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
> wrote:
>
>
>http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
> 
> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Josh Luthman]

8 Channels around here for me...

http://www.spectrumbridge.com/products-services/whitespaces/showmywhitespace/single-location-search.aspx

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jeromie Reeves  wrote:
> That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
> channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
> people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
> just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.
>
> Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
> has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
> contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
> just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett  
> wrote:
>>  That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
>> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>>
>> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>>> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
>>> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
>>> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis  wrote:
 It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.



 Josh Luthman wrote:

 I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
 search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
 wrong?

 Josh Luthman
 Office: 937-552-2340
 Direct: 937-552-2343
 1100 Wayne St
 Suite 1337
 Troy, OH 45373



 On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
 wrote:


 Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
 Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
 have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
 jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
 results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
 bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
 back to the default. Any ideas?

 On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
   wrote:


   http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/

 Kind of cool I think...


 
 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/

>>>
>>> 
>>> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Jeromie Reeves]

That was where my question was going. 12mhz could let you use a 10mhz
channel. Yes we are used to half duplex because that is what most
people make. I would love full duplex and with all the mimo gear it
just my be possible to do it at a end user acceptable rate.

Most of the area I am interested in have 1 block of 4 channels. One
has 2, and a 3rd has 10!  I am very interested in find the exact
contours for that one and what kind of bonding might be possible. Even
just 40mhz Rockets would make me happy for a while.

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Mike Hammett  wrote:
>  That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput
> you're going to have to find several channels together.
>
> With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
>> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
>> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
>> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis  wrote:
>>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
>>> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
>>> wrong?
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman
>>> Office: 937-552-2340
>>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>>> 1100 Wayne St
>>> Suite 1337
>>> Troy, OH 45373
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
>>> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
>>> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
>>> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
>>> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
>>> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
>>> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
>>> back to the default. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>   http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>>
>>> Kind of cool I think...
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 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/
>>>
>>
>> 
>> 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

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Charles N Wyble]

  You have to hit show incumbents. If you just hit enter after putting 
in an address it doesn't show anything. The submit action appears to be 
the find address button which just finds you on the map.



On 9/25/2010 1:52 AM, Josh Luthman wrote:
> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> wrong?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>




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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Mike Hammett]

  There's a good idea.  With the increasing amounts of customer upload 
traffic, a 50/50 system isn't necessarily all that bad.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/25/2010 8:29 AM, Brian Webster wrote:
> One idea that we could all think about is separate transmit and receive
> frequencies. WISP's are so used to half duplex radio systems they sometimes
> forget about that concept. This would allow you to make use of non
> contiguous channels and your latency would be real low.
>
>
>
> Brian
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
> Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 5:26 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes
>
> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis  wrote:
>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
>> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
>> wrong?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
>> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
>> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
>> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
>> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
>> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
>> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
>> back to the default. Any ideas?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>>   wrote:
>>
>>
>>   http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>
>> Kind of cool I think...
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>> 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/
>>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Mike Hammett]

  That's another thing to remember...  to have any usable throughput 
you're going to have to find several channels together.

With UBNT gear, 6 MHz only yields 15 megabits.  MT's N might double that.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/25/2010 4:25 AM, Jeromie Reeves wrote:
> Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
> 2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
> or will you need to pick 3 or 4?
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis  wrote:
>> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>>
>>
>>
>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>
>> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
>> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
>> wrong?
>>
>> Josh Luthman
>> Office: 937-552-2340
>> Direct: 937-552-2343
>> 1100 Wayne St
>> Suite 1337
>> Troy, OH 45373
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
>> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
>> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
>> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
>> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
>> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
>> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
>> back to the default. Any ideas?
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>>   wrote:
>>
>>
>>   http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>
>> Kind of cool I think...
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
>>
>
> 
> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Brian Webster]

One idea that we could all think about is separate transmit and receive
frequencies. WISP's are so used to half duplex radio systems they sometimes
forget about that concept. This would allow you to make use of non
contiguous channels and your latency would be real low.



Brian


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jeromie Reeves
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2010 5:26 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
or will you need to pick 3 or 4?

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis  wrote:
> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> wrong?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves 
> wrote:
>
>
> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> back to the default. Any ideas?
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>  wrote:
>
>
>  http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
>


> 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/
>




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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Jeromie Reeves]

Ah much better. Now, if a town has say 4 channels open (in a row) like
2 3 4 5, can you use 3 and 4, keeping 2 and 5 as the guard channels?
or will you need to pick 3 or 4?

On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 2:05 AM, Blair Davis  wrote:
> It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.
>
>
>
> Josh Luthman wrote:
>
> I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
> search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
> wrong?
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves 
> wrote:
>
>
> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> back to the default. Any ideas?
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>  wrote:
>
>
>  http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
> 
> 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/
>



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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Blair Davis]

It is broke.  Use http://www.spectrumbridge.com instead.



Josh Luthman wrote:

  I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
wrong?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves  wrote:
  
  
Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
back to the default. Any ideas?

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
 wrote:


   http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/

Kind of cool I think...



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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Josh Luthman]

I go to it and it seems there are no available channels anywhere I
search.  Maybe they're working on it?  Maybe I'm doing something
wrong?

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373



On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:46 AM, Jeromie Reeves  wrote:
> Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
> 'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
> Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
> have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
> jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
> results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
> bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
> back to the default. Any ideas?
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
>  wrote:
>>  http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>>
>> Kind of cool I think...
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Jeromie Reeves]

Am I the only one its not working for? I get script errors like
'Server Error in '/WSWebGUI' Application.' (and more info snipped).
Scripts are turned on in FireFox on Linux and Windows, and IE does not
have any changes from default (it is never used). Clicking on channels
jumps it to the default view. Clicking 'Show nearby incumbents' always
results in a error. Using addresses in the search works, displays the
bing map of the location, and all buttons (except show nearby) jump
back to the default. Any ideas?

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Charles N Wyble
 wrote:
>  http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
> 
> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Faisal Imtiaz]

looks awfully similar to what is on Spectrum Bridge's web site...

:)

Faisal Imtiaz
Snappy Internet & Telecom
7266 SW 48 Street
Miami, Fl 33155
Tel: 305 663 5518 x 232
Helpdesk: 305 663 5518 option 2 Email: supp...@snappydsl.net

On 9/24/2010 6:48 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/
>
> Kind of cool I think...
>
>
> 
> 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] TV whitespaces - M$ contributes

[Charles N Wyble]

  http://whitespaces.msresearch.us/

Kind of cool I think...



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] TV Whitespaces 802.19.1 coexistance workshop

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Hi All,

I'm sitting in this meeting and thought I'd take notes and let you know 
what's going on.

This is NOT an IEEE function, it's done by the committee.

I'll add to this note as I can.

If anyone has questions they'd like me to ask fire them out and I'll pass 
them along.
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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Scottie Arnett]

No problem.

We really need this spectrum, as was the reason for my ramblings on the 
cybertelecom list about Rhetoric on Comcast vs. ATT. All they were talking 
about was the duoply and how the FCC is going to go before Congress so they 
have the authority to treat all ISP's as telcos. I was trying to make the point 
that (1) the FCC needs to realize there are other ISP's out there besides cable 
companies and telcos, and (2) To not auction off the whitespace spectrum 
because it will just end up in the hands of the duoply.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: Steve Barnes 
Date:  Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:30:49 -0400

>Scottie that is a great link.  Thankyou
>
>Steve Barnes
>RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
>Of Scottie Arnett
>Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:36 PM
>To: WISPA General List
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>
>This may have already been answered or may not be exactly what you are looking 
>for, but: http://showmywhitespace.com/ shows what is available.
>
>Scottie
>
>-- Original Message --
>From: "Tom DeReggi" 
>Reply-To: WISPA General List 
>Date:  Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:51:26 -0400
>
>>I probably wont get to it today, but I'll find the google earth overlay that
>>I had that showed it, and post it to the list shortly.
>>
>>Tom DeReggi
>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Randy Cosby" 
>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Could you give us a hint how we would find this info?
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>>> It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel
>>>> availabilty
>>>> in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
>>>> territory or not.
>>>>
>>>> Tom DeReggi
>>>> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "John Scrivner"
>>>> To: "WISPA General List"
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>>>>> Every
>>>>> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
>>>>> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
>>>>> the
>>>>> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
>>>>> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue
>>>>> but
>>>>> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
>>>>> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
>>>>> quality
>>>>> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
>>>>> coverage
>>>>> to 100% of my potential customer base.
>>>>> John Scrivner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What
>>>>>> channel
>>>>>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
>>>>>> band
>>>>>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to
>>>>>> clock
>>>>>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>>>>>> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
>>>>>> trees
>>>>>> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your
>>>>>> penetration
>>>>>> (>800 Mhz).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Barnes
>>>&

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[RickG]

Is anyone using these freqs?
-RickG

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Scottie Arnett  wrote:
>
> This may have already been answered or may not be exactly what you are 
> looking for, but: http://showmywhitespace.com/ shows what is available.
>
> Scottie
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" 
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:51:26 -0400
>
>>I probably wont get to it today, but I'll find the google earth overlay that
>>I had that showed it, and post it to the list shortly.
>>
>>Tom DeReggi
>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>- Original Message -
>>From: "Randy Cosby" 
>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>>
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> Could you give us a hint how we would find this info?
>>>
>>> Randy
>>>
>>>> It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel
>>>> availabilty
>>>> in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
>>>> territory or not.
>>>>
>>>> Tom DeReggi
>>>> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
>>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Original Message -
>>>> From: "John Scrivner"
>>>> To: "WISPA General List"
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>>>>> Every
>>>>> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
>>>>> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
>>>>> the
>>>>> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
>>>>> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue
>>>>> but
>>>>> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
>>>>> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
>>>>> quality
>>>>> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
>>>>> coverage
>>>>> to 100% of my potential customer base.
>>>>> John Scrivner
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What
>>>>>> channel
>>>>>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
>>>>>> band
>>>>>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to
>>>>>> clock
>>>>>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>>>>>> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
>>>>>> trees
>>>>>> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your
>>>>>> penetration
>>>>>> (>800 Mhz).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Steve Barnes
>>>>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Mike
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>>>>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>>>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>>>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
>>>>>> rural
>>>>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> channel on the same tower using op

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Steve Barnes]

Scottie that is a great link.  Thankyou

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 11:36 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC


This may have already been answered or may not be exactly what you are looking 
for, but: http://showmywhitespace.com/ shows what is available.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:51:26 -0400

>I probably wont get to it today, but I'll find the google earth overlay that
>I had that showed it, and post it to the list shortly.
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Randy Cosby" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Could you give us a hint how we would find this info?
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>> It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel
>>> availabilty
>>> in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
>>> territory or not.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "John Scrivner"
>>> To: "WISPA General List"
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>>>> Every
>>>> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
>>>> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
>>>> the
>>>> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
>>>> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue
>>>> but
>>>> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
>>>> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
>>>> quality
>>>> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
>>>> coverage
>>>> to 100% of my potential customer base.
>>>> John Scrivner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What
>>>>> channel
>>>>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
>>>>> band
>>>>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to
>>>>> clock
>>>>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>>>>> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
>>>>> trees
>>>>> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your
>>>>> penetration
>>>>> (>800 Mhz).
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Barnes
>>>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Mike
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>>>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
>>>>> rural
>>>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
>>>>> any
>>>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna
>&g

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Scottie Arnett]

This may have already been answered or may not be exactly what you are looking 
for, but: http://showmywhitespace.com/ shows what is available.

Scottie

-- Original Message --
From: "Tom DeReggi" 
Reply-To: WISPA General List 
Date:  Wed, 7 Apr 2010 14:51:26 -0400

>I probably wont get to it today, but I'll find the google earth overlay that 
>I had that showed it, and post it to the list shortly.
>
>Tom DeReggi
>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
>- Original Message - 
>From: "Randy Cosby" 
>To: "WISPA General List" 
>Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Could you give us a hint how we would find this info?
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>> It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel 
>>> availabilty
>>> in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
>>> territory or not.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: "John Scrivner"
>>> To: "WISPA General List"
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>>>> Every
>>>> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
>>>> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
>>>> the
>>>> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
>>>> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue 
>>>> but
>>>> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
>>>> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
>>>> quality
>>>> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
>>>> coverage
>>>> to 100% of my potential customer base.
>>>> John Scrivner
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What 
>>>>> channel
>>>>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
>>>>> band
>>>>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to 
>>>>> clock
>>>>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>>>>> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
>>>>> trees
>>>>> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your 
>>>>> penetration
>>>>> (>800 Mhz).
>>>>>
>>>>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Steve Barnes
>>>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Original Message-
>>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Mike
>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>>>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>>
>>>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
>>>>> rural
>>>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
>>>>> any
>>>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna 
>>>>> would
>>>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is
>>>>> by
>>>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built 
>&g

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Kurt Fankhauser]

The area you described below should be fit for this TV whitespace. However
in my area there are better options since we have far fewer trees. A
combination of 3.65ghz, 2.4ghz, and 900mhz will get me to every customer in
my area.

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Jenkins
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

You might have a lot of pigs, but I am guessing you haven't dealt with 
forest. I have areas where it takes a 200ft tower to mostly beat the 
foliage. And there are 150ft pine trees every 10-15ft everywhere. 
Customers have anywhere from 20 to 100 acre properties. Most customers 
cannot see their neighbors house. Also you can travel 1 mile in some 
areas and the elevation can change over 1000ft. The next major ridgeline 
or mountain is about every 4 miles.

900mhz with clean spectrum does not work in most of these areas at less 
than 1 mile. Whitespace will make it so a lot of houses in the rural 
areas around here (Northern California) can get Internet faster than 
28.8bps dialup.

Mike Hammett wrote:
> On the contrary, with proper equipment availability, the band will be
quite 
> a benefit, but I suggest that we not underestimate the negatives and 
> overestimate the positives.
> 
> I would call myself rural, but not desolate.  ;-)  There's 2400 pigs on
this 
> property, no less than 100k pigs within a 1.5 mile radius, approximately
1M 
> pigs in the county.
> 
> Providing adequate current\next generation speeds to a 100 home
subdivision 
> or town is just as much of a pain due to foliage for me as it is for
anyone 
> else.  I'd much rather point a TV sector from an existing tower or two
than 
> construct an 80' tower to overcome foliage before I can use equipment in 
> legacy bands.  This method reduce the points of failure and permits more 
> sophisticated support systems (power backup, backhaul, security, etc.)
than 
> building little towers everywhere I want to serve a few houses.
> 
> It also allows me to reach into new markets before I can justify the cost
of 
> setting up a full tower using legacy bands.
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From: "Ryan Spott" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:26 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> 
>> Mike,
>>
>> I would suggest that you not use this band if it does not meet your
needs. 
>> I
>> tend to not use 5.8 in my area as 5.8 does not meet my needs.
>>
>> Your needs appear to be different from mine.
>>
>> ryan
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So we're regressing to a bunch of high powered omnis?  Maybe I don't
>>> understand how much of a God-send sync is, but if it's that great, why
is
>>> the default Canopy setup 6x 60* sectors instead of a single omni?  (I'm 
>>> not
>>> saying sync is bad, I wish everything had sync).
>>>
>>> I don't really give a hoot about the higher power.  Regular power levels
>>> will give me the penetration I need.  I'll run out of mbit/s long before

>>> I
>>> run out of dB.  I am aware that more rural areas need the higher power. 
>>> As
>>> many people are looking to penetrate the foliage domain of a populated 
>>> town
>>> or subdivision as there are looking to traverse a sparse forest.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Ryan Spott" 
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>>> At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)
>>>>
>>>> With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less
>>>> interference).
>>>>
>>>> With GPS timing (ala moto/cell gear) you will have less
>>> self-interference.
>>>> ryan
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hammett
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My experience is mostly limit

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

That may well be the case, but that doesn't mean anything I said was wrong. 
Whitespaces still won't go through the mountains.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Matt Jenkins" 
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 2:52 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> You might have a lot of pigs, but I am guessing you haven't dealt with
> forest. I have areas where it takes a 200ft tower to mostly beat the
> foliage. And there are 150ft pine trees every 10-15ft everywhere.
> Customers have anywhere from 20 to 100 acre properties. Most customers
> cannot see their neighbors house. Also you can travel 1 mile in some
> areas and the elevation can change over 1000ft. The next major ridgeline
> or mountain is about every 4 miles.
>
> 900mhz with clean spectrum does not work in most of these areas at less
> than 1 mile. Whitespace will make it so a lot of houses in the rural
> areas around here (Northern California) can get Internet faster than
> 28.8bps dialup.
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> On the contrary, with proper equipment availability, the band will be 
>> quite
>> a benefit, but I suggest that we not underestimate the negatives and
>> overestimate the positives.
>>
>> I would call myself rural, but not desolate.  ;-)  There's 2400 pigs on 
>> this
>> property, no less than 100k pigs within a 1.5 mile radius, approximately 
>> 1M
>> pigs in the county.
>>
>> Providing adequate current\next generation speeds to a 100 home 
>> subdivision
>> or town is just as much of a pain due to foliage for me as it is for 
>> anyone
>> else.  I'd much rather point a TV sector from an existing tower or two 
>> than
>> construct an 80' tower to overcome foliage before I can use equipment in
>> legacy bands.  This method reduce the points of failure and permits more
>> sophisticated support systems (power backup, backhaul, security, etc.) 
>> than
>> building little towers everywhere I want to serve a few houses.
>>
>> It also allows me to reach into new markets before I can justify the cost 
>> of
>> setting up a full tower using legacy bands.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Ryan Spott" 
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:26 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> I would suggest that you not use this band if it does not meet your 
>>> needs.
>>> I
>>> tend to not use 5.8 in my area as 5.8 does not meet my needs.
>>>
>>> Your needs appear to be different from mine.
>>>
>>> ryan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Mike Hammett
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So we're regressing to a bunch of high powered omnis?  Maybe I don't
>>>> understand how much of a God-send sync is, but if it's that great, why 
>>>> is
>>>> the default Canopy setup 6x 60* sectors instead of a single omni?  (I'm
>>>> not
>>>> saying sync is bad, I wish everything had sync).
>>>>
>>>> I don't really give a hoot about the higher power.  Regular power 
>>>> levels
>>>> will give me the penetration I need.  I'll run out of mbit/s long 
>>>> before
>>>> I
>>>> run out of dB.  I am aware that more rural areas need the higher power.
>>>> As
>>>> many people are looking to penetrate the foliage domain of a populated
>>>> town
>>>> or subdivision as there are looking to traverse a sparse forest.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> From: "Ryan Spott" 
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM
>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>>> At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Matt Jenkins]

You might have a lot of pigs, but I am guessing you haven't dealt with 
forest. I have areas where it takes a 200ft tower to mostly beat the 
foliage. And there are 150ft pine trees every 10-15ft everywhere. 
Customers have anywhere from 20 to 100 acre properties. Most customers 
cannot see their neighbors house. Also you can travel 1 mile in some 
areas and the elevation can change over 1000ft. The next major ridgeline 
or mountain is about every 4 miles.

900mhz with clean spectrum does not work in most of these areas at less 
than 1 mile. Whitespace will make it so a lot of houses in the rural 
areas around here (Northern California) can get Internet faster than 
28.8bps dialup.

Mike Hammett wrote:
> On the contrary, with proper equipment availability, the band will be quite 
> a benefit, but I suggest that we not underestimate the negatives and 
> overestimate the positives.
> 
> I would call myself rural, but not desolate.  ;-)  There's 2400 pigs on this 
> property, no less than 100k pigs within a 1.5 mile radius, approximately 1M 
> pigs in the county.
> 
> Providing adequate current\next generation speeds to a 100 home subdivision 
> or town is just as much of a pain due to foliage for me as it is for anyone 
> else.  I'd much rather point a TV sector from an existing tower or two than 
> construct an 80' tower to overcome foliage before I can use equipment in 
> legacy bands.  This method reduce the points of failure and permits more 
> sophisticated support systems (power backup, backhaul, security, etc.) than 
> building little towers everywhere I want to serve a few houses.
> 
> It also allows me to reach into new markets before I can justify the cost of 
> setting up a full tower using legacy bands.
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From: "Ryan Spott" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:26 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> 
>> Mike,
>>
>> I would suggest that you not use this band if it does not meet your needs. 
>> I
>> tend to not use 5.8 in my area as 5.8 does not meet my needs.
>>
>> Your needs appear to be different from mine.
>>
>> ryan
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Mike Hammett 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So we're regressing to a bunch of high powered omnis?  Maybe I don't
>>> understand how much of a God-send sync is, but if it's that great, why is
>>> the default Canopy setup 6x 60* sectors instead of a single omni?  (I'm 
>>> not
>>> saying sync is bad, I wish everything had sync).
>>>
>>> I don't really give a hoot about the higher power.  Regular power levels
>>> will give me the penetration I need.  I'll run out of mbit/s long before 
>>> I
>>> run out of dB.  I am aware that more rural areas need the higher power. 
>>> As
>>> many people are looking to penetrate the foliage domain of a populated 
>>> town
>>> or subdivision as there are looking to traverse a sparse forest.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Ryan Spott" 
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>>> At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)
>>>>
>>>> With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less
>>>> interference).
>>>>
>>>> With GPS timing (ala moto/cell gear) you will have less
>>> self-interference.
>>>> ryan
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hammett
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not
>>>>> completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome,
>>> but
>>>>> any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi 
>>>>> performance
>>>>> is
>>>>> going to be huge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Tom DeReggi]

I probably wont get to it today, but I'll find the google earth overlay that 
I had that showed it, and post it to the list shortly.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "Randy Cosby" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC


> Tom,
>
> Could you give us a hint how we would find this info?
>
> Randy
>
>> It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel 
>> availabilty
>> in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
>> territory or not.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "John Scrivner"
>> To: "WISPA General List"
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>>
>>
>>> I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>>> Every
>>> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
>>> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
>>> the
>>> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
>>> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue 
>>> but
>>> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
>>> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
>>> quality
>>> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
>>> coverage
>>> to 100% of my potential customer base.
>>> John Scrivner
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What 
>>>> channel
>>>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
>>>> band
>>>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to 
>>>> clock
>>>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>>>> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
>>>> trees
>>>> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>>>
>>>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your 
>>>> penetration
>>>> (>800 Mhz).
>>>>
>>>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>>>
>>>> Steve Barnes
>>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Mike
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
>>>> rural
>>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
>>>> any
>>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some 
>>>> of
>>>> the
>>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna 
>>>> would
>>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is
>>>> by
>>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built 
>>>> to
>>>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes 
>>>> to
>>>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>>>
>>>> Friendly Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>>> P.O. Box 255
>>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>>> 239.770.6203
>>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[MDK]

The methodology the FCC uses to measure spectrum (channel) width is such 
that a 7 mhz channel actually means one of our 10 mhz channels for OFDM. 
Understand that there's simple less energy radiated at the edges of the 
channel, due to the way modulation works, and so they measure the channel 
width as being some many mhz from the center - X number of DB down.

Thus, we can use 802.11a @ 5,10, or 20 mhz channel, and it fits their 
requirements for 3.5, 7, and 14 mhz channel widths.

So, to not be industry contrary, we should ask for 3.5, 7, 14, and 28 mhz 
channels.



++
Neofast, Inc, Making internet easy
541-969-8200  509-386-4589
++

--
From: "Harold Bledsoe" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:32 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> 6MHz is a weird channel size for our industry traditionally but in 5MHz
> ~25Mbps aggregate would be comfortable.
>
> -Hal
>
> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 07:39 -0700, Ryan Spott wrote:
>> Hey Steve,
>>
>> I use the cable-cos as an example. They get 30Mbit/sec for 6Mhz. (at 
>> least
>> using docsis)
>>
>> ryan
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>
>> > Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What 
>> > channel
>> > width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF 
>> > band
>> > of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to 
>> > clock
>> > the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>> > customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through 
>> > trees
>> > and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>> >
>> > The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your 
>> > penetration
>> > (>800 Mhz).
>> >
>> > Someone enlighten me here.
>> >
>> > Steve Barnes
>> > RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Mike
>> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>> > To: 'WISPA General List'
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >
>> > Awesome report!  Thanks.
>> > Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>> > turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS 
>> > rural
>> > market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse 
>> > any
>> > channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some 
>> > of
>> > the
>> > discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna 
>> > would
>> > look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is 
>> > by
>> > necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>> > frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built 
>> > to
>> > blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes 
>> > to
>> > pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>> >
>> > Friendly Regards,
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > Mike Gilchrist
>> > Disruptive Technologist
>> > Advanced Wireless Express
>> > P.O. Box 255
>> > Toledo, IA   52342
>> > 239.770.6203
>> > m...@aweiowa.com
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>> > To: WISPA General List
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >
>> > This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>> >
>> > Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
>> > posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
>> > right.
>> >
>> > Steve Barnes
>> > RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Jack Unger
>> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>> > To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>> > Subject: 

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

Be careful when installing those antennae and make sure you read those
instructions:
<
http://consumerist.com/2010/03/these-antenna-installation-instructions-are-surprisingly-specific.html
>

ryan

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Ryan Spott  wrote:

> Channel 2 (54-60 MHz) 102" 259cm
> Channel 3 (60-66 MHz) 92"  234cm
> Channel 4 (66-72 MHz) 83"  211cm
> Channel 6 (82-88 MHz) 72"  183cm
>
> A typical antenna for low-band VHF:
>  from <
> http://www.antennacraft.net/Yagi.html>
> Ugly? Yes.
> Cheap (for now)? Yes
> Broadband with penetration: Heck yes. :)
>
>
> ryan
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Leon D. Zetekoff  wrote:
>
>> On 4/5/2010 11:02 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>
>>> A Couple questions.
>>>
>>> First,  I would agree, any Whitespace spectrum is good spectrum for us,
>>> and
>>> better than none.
>>>
>>> But, why does the FCC keep hypothetically asking us "what about VHF
>>> channels 1-x" the lower part of the band?
>>> I think when we met with Blair, the lower portion of VHF also came up
>>> briefly.
>>>
>>> 1. Are they asking us, because they plan to give the rest to someone else
>>> :-(
>>> 2. Are they asking because others are requesting the higher portions of
>>> the
>>> band, that are more advantageous?And wondering whether we consider the
>>> lower
>>> portions more or less advantageous for our use?
>>> 3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?),
>>> that
>>> we dont know about or do know about?
>>> 4. Is VHF ch 1-X (7?) more advantageous, becaue its a band more widely
>>> available in more places in the US?
>>> (For example, I think some free channels exist in Band 1-7 for the DC
>>> area, but I'd need to go back and check to verify).
>>> 5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the
>>> band?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hey Tom...
>>
>> a six meter vertical is long - a half wave is about 8.6 feet.(6m is
>> 50-54mHz) so a quarter wave vertical is 4.3'. Add more gain gets bigger.
>>
>> Look at the elements in a TV yagi to get a feel for the low-band (2-6)
>> element size. ALso, most tv antennas are not that directional on lo-band;
>> hi-band (7-13) usually has more gain and directionality.
>>
>> But would I want to be able to use that spectrum? Absolutely.
>>
>> 
>>
>> Leon
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10
>> 02:32:00
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Josh Luthman]

Probably not but it has some other uses!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_frequency

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue
that counts.”
--- Winston Churchill


On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:02 AM, RickG  wrote:

> GHz. I dont think MHz would carry much data?
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> > 2.5GHz or MHz?
> >
> > On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:06 PM, RickG wrote:
> >
> >> Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
> >> we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
> >> with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
> >>> 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
> >>> watts. Is this really necessary?
> >>>
> >>> Kurt Fankhauser
> >>> WAVELINC
> >>> P.O. Box 126
> >>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> >>> 419-562-6405
> >>> www.wavelinc.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> >>> Behalf Of Ryan Spott
> >>> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
> >>> To: WISPA General List
> >>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >>>
> >>> This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
> >>>
> >>> We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
> >>>
> >>> ryan
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the
> radio?
> >>>>
> >>>> Kurt Fankhauser
> >>>> WAVELINC
> >>>> P.O. Box 126
> >>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> >>>> 419-562-6405
> >>>> www.wavelinc.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -Original Message-
> >>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> >>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> >>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> >>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >>>>
> >>>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the
> WISPA
> >>>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
> >>>> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington
> D.C.
> >>>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
> >>>>
> >>>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips,
> John
> >>>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> >>>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
> >>>>
> >>>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
> >>>> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
> >>>> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
> >>>> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
> >>>> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> >>>> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every
> meeting
> >>>> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also
> required
> >>>> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
> >>>> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe
> Reader
> >>>> viewer.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
> >>>>
> >>>> Respectfully Submitted,
> >>>>
> >>>> Jack Unger
> >>>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> >>>> 818-227-4220
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> >>>> Network Design - Technical Training - Te

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[RickG]

GHz. I dont think MHz would carry much data?

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> 2.5GHz or MHz?
>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:06 PM, RickG wrote:
>
>> Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
>> we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
>> with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>>> 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
>>> watts. Is this really necessary?
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Ryan Spott
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>> This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
>>>
>>> We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
>>>
>>> ryan
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>>> WAVELINC
>>>> P.O. Box 126
>>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>>> 419-562-6405
>>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>>>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>>>> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>>>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>>>
>>>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>>>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>>>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>>>
>>>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
>>>> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
>>>> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
>>>> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
>>>> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>>>>
>>>> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
>>>> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
>>>> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
>>>> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
>>>> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
>>>> viewer.
>>>>
>>>> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully Submitted,
>>>>
>>>> Jack Unger
>>>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>>>> 818-227-4220
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
>>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
>>>> 1993
>>>> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>>
>>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>>
>>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>>
>>>> Archives

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Very cool!

I'm glad this meeting went so well.  Fingers crossed that we get positive 
results!
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Jack Unger" 
To: ; "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 4:17 PM
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC


> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
> viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> -- 
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 
> 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>





>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Theoretically, if you have the circular sense of a circularly polarized
signal wrong, you will have infinite loss.  However, typically, due to
distortions in the atmosphere and multipath, you will end up with an
elliptical signal with an E-field vector component greater in one direction
than the other.

Using a linearly polarized antenna for a circularly polarized signal shows a
theoretical loss of 3 dB.  My experiments showed this loss to be both
greater and lesser than that, depending on the path.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Greg Ihnen
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 3:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Circular polarization is used to prevent "picket fencing" - the signal
dropping out repeatedly as one moves through areas where reflections meet to
create a null in the signal. And you pay a price for that because the
receive antennas are not circularly polarized. So there's a polarization
mismatch.

Greg

On Apr 5, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Mike wrote:

> Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most
are
> circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and
vertical
> receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My
choice
> of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum
parts,
> not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity
will
> be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
> circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
> reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.
The
> same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing harness
> on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
> circular polarization.
> 
> Friendly Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> 
> Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain
antenna 
> all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> From: "Mike" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> 
>> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will 
>> cover
>> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
>> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>> 
>> I'd make this challenge:
>> 
>> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
>> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
>> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands,
and
>> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
>> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
>> 
>> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
>> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
>> for comparison.
>> 
>> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of 
>> deploying
>> in these bands.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

> 
>> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

How much existing equipment is in these bands on what polarities?  I'm 
assuming TV broadcast on V and H and then mics on random linear polarities.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Cameron Crum" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 4:54 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Well it will still see the H and V pol but at reduced gain. The main
> advantage would be to use as you suggest...opposite pols for greater
> frequency reuse.
>
> Cameron
>
> On 4/5/2010 4:41 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
>> Doesn't a circularly polarized antenna actually accept more noise? I mean 
>> if you have a vertically polarized antenna than horizontal noise is 
>> reduced by 20db and vice versa. Whereas, there is no such penalty for a 
>> circularly polarized antenna regarding vertically and horizontally 
>> polarized noise. In fact, only the opposite circularly polarized patten 
>> has a penalty.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Cameron Crum wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Actually, Mike I like your original idea about circularly polarized
>>> antennas for these bands. They are by nature, very broadband, and don't
>>> need to be extremely big. At these frequencies, propagation is so much
>>> better, that you wouldn't super high gain...and probably wouldn't want
>>> it. Besides that, the circ. pol will help filter out a lot of the
>>> unwanted noise.
>>>
>>> Cameron
>>>
>>> On 4/5/2010 12:27 PM, Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>> Think innovation.  Remove or move a segment of a certain element design 
>>>> and
>>>> you've modified the resonant frequency.  With things I have in my barn 
>>>> I
>>>> could design and build a turnstile with tunable elements.  Think 
>>>> trombone
>>>> with specific markings.  Broadband antennas by design need be larger 
>>>> than an
>>>> antenna designed for a specific segment.  From everything I know about
>>>> antenna design, this is NOT a deal breaker.
>>>>
>>>> Friendly Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>>> P.O. Box 255
>>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>>> 239.770.6203
>>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:10 PM
>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>> While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most
>>>> separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and 
>>>> would
>>>>
>>>> need to stock too many different antenna models.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> From: "Mike"
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
>>>> To: "'WISPA General List'"
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS 
>>>>> rural
>>>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse 
>>>>> any
>>>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some 
>>>>> of
>>>>> the
>>>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna 
>>>>> would
>>>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna 
>>>>> is by
>>>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built 
>>>>> to
>>

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Cameron Crum]

Well it will still see the H and V pol but at reduced gain. The main 
advantage would be to use as you suggest...opposite pols for greater 
frequency reuse.

Cameron

On 4/5/2010 4:41 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Doesn't a circularly polarized antenna actually accept more noise? I mean if 
> you have a vertically polarized antenna than horizontal noise is reduced by 
> 20db and vice versa. Whereas, there is no such penalty for a circularly 
> polarized antenna regarding vertically and horizontally polarized noise. In 
> fact, only the opposite circularly polarized patten has a penalty.
>
> -Matt
>
> On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Cameron Crum wrote:
>
>
>> Actually, Mike I like your original idea about circularly polarized
>> antennas for these bands. They are by nature, very broadband, and don't
>> need to be extremely big. At these frequencies, propagation is so much
>> better, that you wouldn't super high gain...and probably wouldn't want
>> it. Besides that, the circ. pol will help filter out a lot of the
>> unwanted noise.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>> On 4/5/2010 12:27 PM, Mike wrote:
>>  
>>> Think innovation.  Remove or move a segment of a certain element design and
>>> you've modified the resonant frequency.  With things I have in my barn I
>>> could design and build a turnstile with tunable elements.  Think trombone
>>> with specific markings.  Broadband antennas by design need be larger than an
>>> antenna designed for a specific segment.  From everything I know about
>>> antenna design, this is NOT a deal breaker.
>>>
>>> Friendly Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>> P.O. Box 255
>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>> 239.770.6203
>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:10 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>> While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most
>>> separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and would
>>>
>>> need to stock too many different antenna models.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Mike"
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
>>> To: "'WISPA General List'"
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
>>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
>>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
>>>> the
>>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
>>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
>>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
>>>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
>>>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>>>
>>>> Friendly Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>>> P.O. Box 255
>>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>>> 239.770.6203
>>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>>>>
>>>> Next quest

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Matt Liotta]

Doesn't a circularly polarized antenna actually accept more noise? I mean if 
you have a vertically polarized antenna than horizontal noise is reduced by 
20db and vice versa. Whereas, there is no such penalty for a circularly 
polarized antenna regarding vertically and horizontally polarized noise. In 
fact, only the opposite circularly polarized patten has a penalty.

-Matt

On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:32 PM, Cameron Crum wrote:

> Actually, Mike I like your original idea about circularly polarized 
> antennas for these bands. They are by nature, very broadband, and don't 
> need to be extremely big. At these frequencies, propagation is so much 
> better, that you wouldn't super high gain...and probably wouldn't want 
> it. Besides that, the circ. pol will help filter out a lot of the 
> unwanted noise.
> 
> Cameron
> 
> On 4/5/2010 12:27 PM, Mike wrote:
>> Think innovation.  Remove or move a segment of a certain element design and
>> you've modified the resonant frequency.  With things I have in my barn I
>> could design and build a turnstile with tunable elements.  Think trombone
>> with specific markings.  Broadband antennas by design need be larger than an
>> antenna designed for a specific segment.  From everything I know about
>> antenna design, this is NOT a deal breaker.
>> 
>> Friendly Regards,
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> Mike Gilchrist
>> Disruptive Technologist
>> Advanced Wireless Express
>> P.O. Box 255
>> Toledo, IA   52342
>> 239.770.6203
>> m...@aweiowa.com
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:10 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> 
>> While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most
>> separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and would
>> 
>> need to stock too many different antenna models.
>> 
>> 
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> From: "Mike"
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'"
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> 
>> 
>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
>>> the
>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
>>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
>>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>> 
>>> Friendly Regards,
>>> 
>>> Mike
>>> 
>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>> P.O. Box 255
>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>> 239.770.6203
>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>> 
>>> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>>> 
>>> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
>>> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
>>> right.
>>> 
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>> 
>>> L

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Cameron Crum]

Actually, Mike I like your original idea about circularly polarized 
antennas for these bands. They are by nature, very broadband, and don't 
need to be extremely big. At these frequencies, propagation is so much 
better, that you wouldn't super high gain...and probably wouldn't want 
it. Besides that, the circ. pol will help filter out a lot of the 
unwanted noise.

Cameron

On 4/5/2010 12:27 PM, Mike wrote:
> Think innovation.  Remove or move a segment of a certain element design and
> you've modified the resonant frequency.  With things I have in my barn I
> could design and build a turnstile with tunable elements.  Think trombone
> with specific markings.  Broadband antennas by design need be larger than an
> antenna designed for a specific segment.  From everything I know about
> antenna design, this is NOT a deal breaker.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:10 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most
> separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and would
>
> need to stock too many different antenna models.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ----------
> From: "Mike"
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
> To: "'WISPA General List'"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>
>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
>> the
>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>
>> Friendly Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike Gilchrist
>> Disruptive Technologist
>> Advanced Wireless Express
>> P.O. Box 255
>> Toledo, IA   52342
>> 239.770.6203
>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>>
>> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
>> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
>> right.
>>
>> Steve Barnes
>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>> Engineering
>> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>
>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>
>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
>> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
>> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by
>> making
>> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
>> Whitespaces mo

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Philip Dorr]

Probably 2.5GHz.  2.5MHz should/would go hundreds (if not thousands)
of miles at 100 watts.

A local 145.12MHz amateur repeater that uses 50 watts and a omni
reaches ~100 miles away (to a 1/4 wave car mounted antenna), and
probably further with a directional on the client/mobile/station.  And
there are HF QRP people that use low power (10W or lower) and still
makes long distant contacts.

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Greg Ihnen  wrote:
> 2.5GHz or MHz?
>
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:06 PM, RickG wrote:
>
>> Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
>> we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
>> with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>>> 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
>>> watts. Is this really necessary?
>>>
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Ryan Spott
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>> This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
>>>
>>> We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
>>>
>>> ryan
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>>>
>>>> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>>>>
>>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>>> WAVELINC
>>>> P.O. Box 126
>>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>>> 419-562-6405
>>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>>
>>>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>>>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>>>> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>>>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>>>
>>>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>>>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>>>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>>>
>>>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
>>>> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
>>>> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
>>>> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
>>>> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>>>>
>>>> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
>>>> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
>>>> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
>>>> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
>>>> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
>>>> viewer.
>>>>
>>>> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully Submitted,
>>>>
>>>> Jack Unger
>>>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>>>> 818-227-4220
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
>>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
>>>> 1993
>>>> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>>
>>>>
&g

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Brian Webster]

Bonding will probably not be much use because the odds of having adjacent
TVWS channels available in the same market are going to be slim. What would
probably work though is a full duplex arrangement where you could deal with
the available channels not being adjacent.



Thank You,
Brian Webster

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

The transmit frequency has nothing to do with how much data you can send, 
it's the channel size.  Channel 2 will move as much data as channel 50. 
TVBD will have limited use if you can't bond at least 3 channels together, 
closer to 6.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Steve Barnes" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:55 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel 
> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF 
> band of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to 
> clock the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be 
> giving customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut 
> through trees and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>
> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration 
> (>800 Mhz).
>
> Someone enlighten me here.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of 
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of 
> Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by 
> making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeti

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Greg Ihnen]

2.5GHz or MHz?

On Apr 4, 2010, at 5:06 PM, RickG wrote:

> Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
> we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
> with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!
> 
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>> 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
>> watts. Is this really necessary?
>> 
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>> 
>> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Ryan Spott
>> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> 
>> This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
>> 
>> We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
>> 
>> ryan
>> 
>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>> 
>>> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>>> 
>>> Kurt Fankhauser
>>> WAVELINC
>>> P.O. Box 126
>>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>>> 419-562-6405
>>> www.wavelinc.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>> 
>>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>>> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>> 
>>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>> 
>>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
>>> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
>>> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
>>> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
>>> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>>> 
>>> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
>>> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
>>> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
>>> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
>>> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
>>> viewer.
>>> 
>>> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>>> 
>>> Respectfully Submitted,
>>> 
>>> Jack Unger
>>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>>> 818-227-4220
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
>>> 1993
>>> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>> 
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>> 
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>> 
>> Subscribe/Unsubscrib

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Greg Ihnen]

Circular polarization is used to prevent "picket fencing" - the signal dropping 
out repeatedly as one moves through areas where reflections meet to create a 
null in the signal. And you pay a price for that because the receive antennas 
are not circularly polarized. So there's a polarization mismatch.

Greg

On Apr 5, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Mike wrote:

> Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most are
> circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and vertical
> receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My choice
> of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum parts,
> not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity will
> be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
> circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
> reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.  The
> same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing harness
> on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
> circular polarization.
> 
> Friendly Regards,
> 
> Mike
> 
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> 
> Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain antenna 
> all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
> 
> 
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
> 
> 
> 
> ----------
> From: "Mike" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> 
>> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will 
>> cover
>> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
>> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>> 
>> I'd make this challenge:
>> 
>> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
>> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
>> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands, and
>> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
>> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
>> 
>> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
>> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
>> for comparison.
>> 
>> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of 
>> deploying
>> in these bands.
>> 
>> Mike
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
>> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

I was sent a private post asking what system, if I was designing it, I would
deploy.  Respecting that post, I'll just answer here.

I think a form of spread spectrum technology, perhaps using coherent radios
would be just the thing.  Some of the best algorithms give those whose
function it is to intercept and analyze heartburn.  But there is a way
around that.

If use of the segments were subject to a sort of licensing light, where the
operator has demonstrated ability to provide CALEA data by user if
subpoenaed, a compromise could be found.

A properly designed coherent system could use 200 watts and only raise the
measurable local noise floor a portion of a dB or so.

If each "coherent" band comprised 6 MHz chunks across 50 or 100 MHz, a
simple (mechanically) antenna at the CPE end could be designed.  Some sort
of daisy, or fractal, or whatever elements could be designed and phased to
exhibit circular polarization of whichever sense you desired.

These are all just brainstorming ideas and in no way constitute a completely
though out plan.  My math may be off by a factor of 10.  LOL

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

Antenna gain is just as much about where the power is as where it isn't. 
It's a much more effective use of my equipment to focus the energy out in a 
8 or 10 degree E plane than it is to shoot it at the moon or at the base of 
the tower.  I also can't very well engineer my network around sources of 
interference if it's listening in all directions.  IF these devices have 
sync, it still doesn't help against other sources that aren't synced such as 
an uncooperative competitor, different technology (whether competitor, TV 
station, spurious emission, etc.)

Even with all these safeguards for the TV stations, I'd still rather not 
point a sector using the same frequency as a TV station towards that 
station's contour unless I have to...  just being a friendly neighbor.

A link budget is still a link budget.  All that's different is the amount of 
free space loss and attenuation by various objects.  I'd rather have quiet 
radios and big antennas than vice versa.  We'd be a completely different use 
of these bands.  Typical uses are broadcast or two-way systems where cells 
and capacity aren't of concern.

Our *ULTIMATE* goal is to get as many mbit/s to as many customers as 
profitably as we can.  Frequency, radio power, and radiation patterns 
dictate how many people get the mbit/s your gear is capable of.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 2:15 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> You're not going to need 15 dBi.
>
> Link budgets are way different at VHF than Microwave.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:46 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not
> completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome, but
> any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi performance 
> is
> going to be huge.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Mike" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>> Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most
>> are
>> circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and
>> vertical
>> receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My
>> choice
>> of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum
>> parts,
>> not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity
>> will
>> be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
>> circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
>> reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.
>> The
>> same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing 
>> harness
>> on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
>> circular polarization.
>>
>> Friendly Regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> Mike Gilchrist
>> Disruptive Technologist
>> Advanced Wireless Express
>> P.O. Box 255
>> Toledo, IA   52342
>> 239.770.6203
>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain
>> antenna
>> all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Mike" 
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>>> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will
>>> cover
>>> the entire VHF TV band, and b

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

You're not going to need 15 dBi.

Link budgets are way different at VHF than Microwave. 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not 
completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome, but 
any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi performance is 
going to be huge.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most 
> are
> circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and 
> vertical
> receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My 
> choice
> of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum 
> parts,
> not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity 
> will
> be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
> circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
> reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation. 
> The
> same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing harness
> on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
> circular polarization.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain 
> antenna
> all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Mike" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will
>> cover
>> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
>> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>>
>> I'd make this challenge:
>>
>> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
>> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
>> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands, 
>> and
>> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
>> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
>>
>> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
>> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
>> for comparison.
>>
>> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of
>> deploying
>> in these bands.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

> 
>> 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://s

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

On the contrary, with proper equipment availability, the band will be quite 
a benefit, but I suggest that we not underestimate the negatives and 
overestimate the positives.

I would call myself rural, but not desolate.  ;-)  There's 2400 pigs on this 
property, no less than 100k pigs within a 1.5 mile radius, approximately 1M 
pigs in the county.

Providing adequate current\next generation speeds to a 100 home subdivision 
or town is just as much of a pain due to foliage for me as it is for anyone 
else.  I'd much rather point a TV sector from an existing tower or two than 
construct an 80' tower to overcome foliage before I can use equipment in 
legacy bands.  This method reduce the points of failure and permits more 
sophisticated support systems (power backup, backhaul, security, etc.) than 
building little towers everywhere I want to serve a few houses.

It also allows me to reach into new markets before I can justify the cost of 
setting up a full tower using legacy bands.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Ryan Spott" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:26 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Mike,
>
> I would suggest that you not use this band if it does not meet your needs. 
> I
> tend to not use 5.8 in my area as 5.8 does not meet my needs.
>
> Your needs appear to be different from mine.
>
> ryan
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
>
>> So we're regressing to a bunch of high powered omnis?  Maybe I don't
>> understand how much of a God-send sync is, but if it's that great, why is
>> the default Canopy setup 6x 60* sectors instead of a single omni?  (I'm 
>> not
>> saying sync is bad, I wish everything had sync).
>>
>> I don't really give a hoot about the higher power.  Regular power levels
>> will give me the penetration I need.  I'll run out of mbit/s long before 
>> I
>> run out of dB.  I am aware that more rural areas need the higher power. 
>> As
>> many people are looking to penetrate the foliage domain of a populated 
>> town
>> or subdivision as there are looking to traverse a sparse forest.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Ryan Spott" 
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> > At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)
>> >
>> > With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less
>> > interference).
>> >
>> > With GPS timing (ala moto/cell gear) you will have less
>> self-interference.
>> >
>> > ryan
>> >
>> > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hammett
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not
>> >> completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome,
>> but
>> >> any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi 
>> >> performance
>> >> is
>> >> going to be huge.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> Mike Hammett
>> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> >> http://www.ics-il.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From: "Mike" 
>> >> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
>> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >>
>> >> > Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?
>> >> > Most
>> >> > are
>> >> > circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and
>> >> > vertical
>> >> > receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My
>> >> > choice
>> >> > of sector would be something like that, and would be made of 
>> >> > aluminum
>> >> > parts,
>> >> > not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular 
>> >> > polarity
>> >> > will
>> >> > be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of
>&

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

Mike,

I would suggest that you not use this band if it does not meet your needs. I
tend to not use 5.8 in my area as 5.8 does not meet my needs.

Your needs appear to be different from mine.

ryan

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> So we're regressing to a bunch of high powered omnis?  Maybe I don't
> understand how much of a God-send sync is, but if it's that great, why is
> the default Canopy setup 6x 60* sectors instead of a single omni?  (I'm not
> saying sync is bad, I wish everything had sync).
>
> I don't really give a hoot about the higher power.  Regular power levels
> will give me the penetration I need.  I'll run out of mbit/s long before I
> run out of dB.  I am aware that more rural areas need the higher power.  As
> many people are looking to penetrate the foliage domain of a populated town
> or subdivision as there are looking to traverse a sparse forest.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Ryan Spott" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> > At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)
> >
> > With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less
> > interference).
> >
> > With GPS timing (ala moto/cell gear) you will have less
> self-interference.
> >
> > ryan
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hammett
> > wrote:
> >
> >> My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not
> >> completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome,
> but
> >> any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi performance
> >> is
> >> going to be huge.
> >>
> >>
> >> -
> >> Mike Hammett
> >> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> http://www.ics-il.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From: "Mike" 
> >> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
> >> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >>
> >> > Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?
> >> > Most
> >> > are
> >> > circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and
> >> > vertical
> >> > receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My
> >> > choice
> >> > of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum
> >> > parts,
> >> > not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity
> >> > will
> >> > be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of
> >> > opposite
> >> > circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
> >> > reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.
> >> > The
> >> > same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing
> >> harness
> >> > on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
> >> > circular polarization.
> >> >
> >> > Friendly Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > Mike Gilchrist
> >> > Disruptive Technologist
> >> > Advanced Wireless Express
> >> > P.O. Box 255
> >> > Toledo, IA   52342
> >> > 239.770.6203
> >> > m...@aweiowa.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -Original Message-
> >> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> >> > Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> >> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
> >> > To: WISPA General List
> >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >> >
> >> > Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain
> >> > antenna
> >> > all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > -
> >> > Mike Hammett
> >> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> >> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

So we're regressing to a bunch of high powered omnis?  Maybe I don't 
understand how much of a God-send sync is, but if it's that great, why is 
the default Canopy setup 6x 60* sectors instead of a single omni?  (I'm not 
saying sync is bad, I wish everything had sync).

I don't really give a hoot about the higher power.  Regular power levels 
will give me the penetration I need.  I'll run out of mbit/s long before I 
run out of dB.  I am aware that more rural areas need the higher power.  As 
many people are looking to penetrate the foliage domain of a populated town 
or subdivision as there are looking to traverse a sparse forest.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Ryan Spott" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 1:02 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)
>
> With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less
> interference).
>
> With GPS timing (ala moto/cell gear) you will have less self-interference.
>
> ryan
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hammett 
> wrote:
>
>> My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not
>> completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome, but
>> any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi performance 
>> is
>> going to be huge.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Mike" 
>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> > Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna? 
>> > Most
>> > are
>> > circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and
>> > vertical
>> > receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My
>> > choice
>> > of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum
>> > parts,
>> > not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity
>> > will
>> > be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of 
>> > opposite
>> > circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
>> > reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.
>> > The
>> > same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing
>> harness
>> > on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
>> > circular polarization.
>> >
>> > Friendly Regards,
>> >
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > Mike Gilchrist
>> > Disruptive Technologist
>> > Advanced Wireless Express
>> > P.O. Box 255
>> > Toledo, IA   52342
>> > 239.770.6203
>> > m...@aweiowa.com
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Mike Hammett
>> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
>> > To: WISPA General List
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >
>> > Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain
>> > antenna
>> > all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
>> >
>> >
>> > -
>> > Mike Hammett
>> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> > http://www.ics-il.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > From: "Mike" 
>> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
>> > To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >
>> >> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will
>> >> cover
>> >> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same
>> mast,
>> >> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>> >>
>> >> I'd make this challenge:
>> >>
>> >> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find
>> it.
>> >> Even well hidden, you would.  Now,

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

At 20watts, you probably won't need a 15db antenna. :)

With lightly licensed, you probably won't need a sector. (less
interference).

With GPS timing (ala moto/cell gear) you will have less self-interference.

ryan

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:

> My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not
> completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome, but
> any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi performance is
> going to be huge.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Mike" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> > Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most
> > are
> > circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and
> > vertical
> > receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My
> > choice
> > of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum
> > parts,
> > not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity
> > will
> > be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
> > circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
> > reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.
> > The
> > same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing
> harness
> > on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
> > circular polarization.
> >
> > Friendly Regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Mike Gilchrist
> > Disruptive Technologist
> > Advanced Wireless Express
> > P.O. Box 255
> > Toledo, IA   52342
> > 239.770.6203
> > m...@aweiowa.com
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >
> > Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain
> > antenna
> > all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
> >
> >
> > -
> > Mike Hammett
> > Intelligent Computing Solutions
> > http://www.ics-il.com
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From: "Mike" 
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
> > To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >
> >> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will
> >> cover
> >> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same
> mast,
> >> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
> >>
> >> I'd make this challenge:
> >>
> >> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find
> it.
> >> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
> >> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands,
> >> and
> >> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
> >> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
> >>
> >> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
> >> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being
> used
> >> for comparison.
> >>
> >> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of
> >> deploying
> >> in these bands.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> > 
> >> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

My experience is mostly limited to the WISP market (though I'm not 
completely ignorant of other markets).  Innovation is always welcome, but 
any sector that delivers approximately 90 degrees and 15 dBi performance is 
going to be huge.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:39 PM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most 
> are
> circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and 
> vertical
> receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My 
> choice
> of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum 
> parts,
> not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity 
> will
> be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
> circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
> reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation. 
> The
> same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing harness
> on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
> circular polarization.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain 
> antenna
> all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Mike" 
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will
>> cover
>> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
>> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>>
>> I'd make this challenge:
>>
>> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
>> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
>> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands, 
>> and
>> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
>> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
>>
>> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
>> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
>> for comparison.
>>
>> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of
>> deploying
>> in these bands.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Have you ever taken a really good look at an FM broadcast antenna?  Most are
circularly polarized so they can be received by both horizontal and vertical
receive antennas.  Even at 90 MHz they aren't that large either.  My choice
of sector would be something like that, and would be made of aluminum parts,
not panels like we are used to using now.  I predict circular polarity will
be the norm.  Why?  Because theoretically, a receive antenna of opposite
circular sense exhibits infinite loss.  My experiments have shown that
reality is less, but you CAN expect at least 30 to 40 dB of isolation.  The
same 6 MHz segment could be reused on the same tower.  The phasing harness
on the CPE antenna would have to set to either left hand or right hand
circular polarization.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:23 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain antenna 
all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will 
> cover
> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>
> I'd make this challenge:
>
> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands, and
> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
>
> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
> for comparison.
>
> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of 
> deploying
> in these bands.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>


> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Think innovation.  Remove or move a segment of a certain element design and
you've modified the resonant frequency.  With things I have in my barn I
could design and build a turnstile with tunable elements.  Think trombone
with specific markings.  Broadband antennas by design need be larger than an
antenna designed for a specific segment.  From everything I know about
antenna design, this is NOT a deal breaker.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 12:10 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most 
separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and would

need to stock too many different antenna models.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of 
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of 
> Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by 
> making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting 
> with
> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

Then the problem arises of frequency reuse if we have such low gain antenna 
all over the place...  and the size of a sector antenna for towers.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:59 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will 
> cover
> the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
> can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.
>
> I'd make this challenge:
>
> I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
> Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
> band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands, and
> let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
> wouldn't find it?  I know I can.
>
> My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
> whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
> for comparison.
>
> This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of 
> deploying
> in these bands.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

The transmit frequency has nothing to do with how much data you can send, 
it's the channel size.  Channel 2 will move as much data as channel 50. 
TVBD will have limited use if you can't bond at least 3 channels together, 
closer to 6.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Steve Barnes" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:55 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel 
> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF 
> band of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to 
> clock the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be 
> giving customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut 
> through trees and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>
> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration 
> (>800 Mhz).
>
> Someone enlighten me here.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On 
> Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of 
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of 
> Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by 
> making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting 
> with
> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serv

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

While it wouldn't need to cover the entire range, I'd expect at a most 
separate UHF and VHF antenna...  otherwise you're way too specific and would 
need to stock too many different antenna models.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Mike" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:23 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of 
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of 
> Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by 
> making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting 
> with
> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailm

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike Hammett]

I've driven this often, but ATPC should be on every device that engages in 2 
way communications.  Every...  single...  one.  Don't tell me it's expensive to 
do, I can buy a new $10 cell phone out of contract that does it.

Without proper ATPC, high power on low frequencies will travel forever in both 
intended and unintended areas.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com




From: Jack Unger 
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 11:55 PM
To: WISPA General List 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC


Depends on the distance and the obstructions. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. 
Would you rather have more power than you need or not enough? We also propose 
use of automatic transmitter power control so we only use as much power as we 
need. 

jack

Kurt Fankhauser wrote: 
20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
watts. Is this really necessary?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.

We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)

ryan

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:

  The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com











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




  WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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





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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com










-

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Just for discussion, let's say a TV LPDA has a gain of 8 dBi.  It will cover
the entire VHF TV band, and by superimposing a UHF LPDA on the same mast,
can cover the entire UHF TV band with similar gain figures.

I'd make this challenge:

I could TRY to hide a TV band LPDA on my property and beg you to find it.
Even well hidden, you would.  Now, give me a few hours to build a narrow
band antenna with similar gain in ANY 6 MHz segment of the same bands, and
let me try to hide it.  Do you think I could hide it well enough you
wouldn't find it?  I know I can.

My point is, the antenna which will be needed for any segment of the
whitespace will be much less intrusive than the LPDA (or Yagi) being used
for comparison.

This is great dialogue.  I hope we are faced with the challenge of deploying
in these bands.

Mike





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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/5/2010 12:18 PM, Mike wrote:

Leon:

Innovation will be key.  Yes, a 6 meter vertical is large.  But, what if you
bent that quarter wave into an odd shape?  Think fractals, cloverleafs, and
other HORIZONATL elements.  Comparing what we'd HAVE to use compared to a TV
Yagi is apples to oranges.  Besides, most TV antennas I have ever met are
Log Periodic Dipole arrays, NOT Yagis.  Why?  Because they have to be
engineered to operate in the ENTIRE TV spectrum, NOT a 6 MHz segment.
   

Hey Mike...

I was just using the size as a reference as well as the tv antenna. THe 
longest elements on a TV antenna is 6m.
yes log periodic is the correct terminology :-) but its still a yagi of 
sorts.


I agree that innovation will be the key. remember the top part of 
lo-band is 88 mHz. There is probably a way to build a multi-TV channel 
antenna. Look at HF verticals or vhf/uhf mobile antennas.


leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10 
02:32:00



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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

Channel 2 (54-60 MHz) 102" 259cm
Channel 3 (60-66 MHz) 92"  234cm
Channel 4 (66-72 MHz) 83"  211cm
Channel 6 (82-88 MHz) 72"  183cm

A typical antenna for low-band VHF:
 from <
http://www.antennacraft.net/Yagi.html>
Ugly? Yes.
Cheap (for now)? Yes
Broadband with penetration: Heck yes. :)


ryan
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Leon D. Zetekoff  wrote:

> On 4/5/2010 11:02 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>
>> A Couple questions.
>>
>> First,  I would agree, any Whitespace spectrum is good spectrum for us,
>> and
>> better than none.
>>
>> But, why does the FCC keep hypothetically asking us "what about VHF
>> channels 1-x" the lower part of the band?
>> I think when we met with Blair, the lower portion of VHF also came up
>> briefly.
>>
>> 1. Are they asking us, because they plan to give the rest to someone else
>> :-(
>> 2. Are they asking because others are requesting the higher portions of
>> the
>> band, that are more advantageous?And wondering whether we consider the
>> lower
>> portions more or less advantageous for our use?
>> 3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?), that
>> we dont know about or do know about?
>> 4. Is VHF ch 1-X (7?) more advantageous, becaue its a band more widely
>> available in more places in the US?
>> (For example, I think some free channels exist in Band 1-7 for the DC
>> area, but I'd need to go back and check to verify).
>> 5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the
>> band?
>>
>>
>>
> Hey Tom...
>
> a six meter vertical is long - a half wave is about 8.6 feet.(6m is
> 50-54mHz) so a quarter wave vertical is 4.3'. Add more gain gets bigger.
>
> Look at the elements in a TV yagi to get a feel for the low-band (2-6)
> element size. ALso, most tv antennas are not that directional on lo-band;
> hi-band (7-13) usually has more gain and directionality.
>
> But would I want to be able to use that spectrum? Absolutely.
>
> 
>
> Leon
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10
> 02:32:00
>
>
>
>
> 
> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Leon:

Innovation will be key.  Yes, a 6 meter vertical is large.  But, what if you
bent that quarter wave into an odd shape?  Think fractals, cloverleafs, and
other HORIZONATL elements.  Comparing what we'd HAVE to use compared to a TV
Yagi is apples to oranges.  Besides, most TV antennas I have ever met are
Log Periodic Dipole arrays, NOT Yagis.  Why?  Because they have to be
engineered to operate in the ENTIRE TV spectrum, NOT a 6 MHz segment.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 





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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Leon D. Zetekoff]

On 4/5/2010 11:02 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:

A Couple questions.

First,  I would agree, any Whitespace spectrum is good spectrum for us, and
better than none.

But, why does the FCC keep hypothetically asking us "what about VHF
channels 1-x" the lower part of the band?
I think when we met with Blair, the lower portion of VHF also came up
briefly.

1. Are they asking us, because they plan to give the rest to someone else
:-(
2. Are they asking because others are requesting the higher portions of the
band, that are more advantageous?And wondering whether we consider the lower
portions more or less advantageous for our use?
3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?), that
we dont know about or do know about?
4. Is VHF ch 1-X (7?) more advantageous, becaue its a band more widely
available in more places in the US?
 (For example, I think some free channels exist in Band 1-7 for the DC
area, but I'd need to go back and check to verify).
5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the band?

   

Hey Tom...

a six meter vertical is long - a half wave is about 8.6 feet.(6m is 
50-54mHz) so a quarter wave vertical is 4.3'. Add more gain gets bigger.


Look at the elements in a TV yagi to get a feel for the low-band (2-6) 
element size. ALso, most tv antennas are not that directional on 
lo-band; hi-band (7-13) usually has more gain and directionality.


But would I want to be able to use that spectrum? Absolutely.



Leon
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release Date: 04/05/10 
02:32:00



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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Steve Barnes]

(As the lights come on and the eyes brighten) OK so now I get it. The Carrier 
frequency and the bandwidth is just the pipe.  What we need to worry about is 
the floor noise, the carrier we attach to and what compression technology we 
use on that carrier which determines the speed and throughput.

I've been in the PC business to long and had the higher freq = more throughput 
had that assumption since there is lower throughput on 900Mhz.  Need to go back 
to my radio classes from college.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of John Scrivner
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:17 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct. Every
television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in the
VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue but
not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
channels would require more forward error correction to provide high quality
service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have coverage
to 100% of my potential customer base.
John Scrivner


On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:

> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band
> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees
> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>
> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
> (>800 Mhz).
>
> Someone enlighten me here.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FC

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Randy Cosby]

Tom,

Could you give us a hint how we would find this info?

Randy

> It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel availabilty
> in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their
> territory or not.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Scrivner"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
>
>
>> I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct.
>> Every
>> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
>> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in
>> the
>> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
>> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue but
>> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
>> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high
>> quality
>> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have
>> coverage
>> to 100% of my potential customer base.
>> John Scrivner
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
>>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
>>> band
>>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
>>> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
>>> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
>>> trees
>>> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>>>
>>> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
>>> (>800 Mhz).
>>>
>>> Someone enlighten me here.
>>>
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Mike
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
>>> To: 'WISPA General List'
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>> Awesome report!  Thanks.
>>> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
>>> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
>>> rural
>>> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
>>> any
>>> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
>>> the
>>> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
>>> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is
>>> by
>>> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
>>> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
>>> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
>>> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>>>
>>> Friendly Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Mike Gilchrist
>>> Disruptive Technologist
>>> Advanced Wireless Express
>>> P.O. Box 255
>>> Toledo, IA   52342
>>> 239.770.6203
>>> m...@aweiowa.com
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
>>> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>>>
>>> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
>>> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
>>> right.
>>>
>>> Steve Barnes
>>> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>>
>>> Last Wednes

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

In-line ...

 

A Couple questions.

 

 

3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?), that 

we dont know about or do know about?

 

We know the size of radiators in the lower portion would be greater.
However, lower frequencies propagate better, and a half wave element shows a
higher voltage than the voltage at higher frequencies, so gain tradeoffs are
partially negated.

 

5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the band?

 

Each "segment" would have to have a radiator designed for that segment --
optimally.

 

I guess my point is What do we as WISPs really think about the VHF ch 

1-X (7?) compared to the other portions of the Whitespace band?

 

I'd much rather have 300 MHz, 500 MHz or higher, but in rural areas, lower
frequencies would work quite well in my opinion.

 

If the FCC is  hypothetically putting the lower bands out there, what do we 

want to do about it?

 

Reach for the ring and don't look back! 




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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

Wimax in 3.65 is 7MHz IIRC... ?


With this sort of bandwidth, and the channel bonding ?that is possible? this
could be a real game changer.. SD video streams top out at 1.5mbps, HD is
between that at 8mbps (ESPN requires a CIR of 8mbps)

Suddenly triple-play is available... with no wire.

Expect hard core competition.

ryan

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Harold Bledsoe wrote:

> 6MHz is a weird channel size for our industry traditionally but in 5MHz
> ~25Mbps aggregate would be comfortable.
>
> -Hal
>
> On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 07:39 -0700, Ryan Spott wrote:
> > Hey Steve,
> >
> > I use the cable-cos as an example. They get 30Mbit/sec for 6Mhz. (at
> least
> > using docsis)
> >
> > ryan
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
> >
> > > Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What
> channel
> > > width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF
> band
> > > of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to
> clock
> > > the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
> > > customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through
> trees
> > > and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
> > >
> > > The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your
> penetration
> > > (>800 Mhz).
> > >
> > > Someone enlighten me here.
> > >
> > > Steve Barnes
> > > RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-
> > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Mike
> > > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> > > To: 'WISPA General List'
> > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> > >
> > > Awesome report!  Thanks.
> > > Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> > > turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS
> rural
> > > market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse
> any
> > > channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some
> of
> > > the
> > > discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna
> would
> > > look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is
> by
> > > necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> > > frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built
> to
> > > blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes
> to
> > > pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
> > >
> > > Friendly Regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > Mike Gilchrist
> > > Disruptive Technologist
> > > Advanced Wireless Express
> > > P.O. Box 255
> > > Toledo, IA   52342
> > > 239.770.6203
> > > m...@aweiowa.com
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> > > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> > > To: WISPA General List
> > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> > >
> > > This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
> > >
> > > Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> > > posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> > > right.
> > >
> > > Steve Barnes
> > > RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
> > >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Jack Unger
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> > > To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> > > Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> > >
> > > Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> > > Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
> Engineering
> > > and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> > > to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
> > >
> > > The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips,
> John
> > > Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Tea

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Harold Bledsoe]

6MHz is a weird channel size for our industry traditionally but in 5MHz
~25Mbps aggregate would be comfortable.

-Hal

On Mon, 2010-04-05 at 07:39 -0700, Ryan Spott wrote:
> Hey Steve,
> 
> I use the cable-cos as an example. They get 30Mbit/sec for 6Mhz. (at least
> using docsis)
> 
> ryan
> 
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
> 
> > Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
> > width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band
> > of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
> > the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
> > customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees
> > and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
> >
> > The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
> > (>800 Mhz).
> >
> > Someone enlighten me here.
> >
> > Steve Barnes
> > RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Mike
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> > To: 'WISPA General List'
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >
> > Awesome report!  Thanks.
> > Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> > turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> > market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> > channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
> > the
> > discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> > look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> > necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> > frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> > blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> > pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
> >
> > Friendly Regards,
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > Mike Gilchrist
> > Disruptive Technologist
> > Advanced Wireless Express
> > P.O. Box 255
> > Toledo, IA   52342
> > 239.770.6203
> > m...@aweiowa.com
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> > Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >
> > This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
> >
> > Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> > posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> > right.
> >
> > Steve Barnes
> > RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jack Unger
> > Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> > To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> > Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >
> > Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> > Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
> > and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> > to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
> >
> > The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> > Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> > Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
> >
> > All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> > that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> > action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by
> > making
> > corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> > Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
> >
> > I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> > written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> > with
> > the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> > part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> > the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Tom DeReggi]

A Couple questions.

First,  I would agree, any Whitespace spectrum is good spectrum for us, and 
better than none.

But, why does the FCC keep hypothetically asking us "what about VHF 
channels 1-x" the lower part of the band?
I think when we met with Blair, the lower portion of VHF also came up 
briefly.

1. Are they asking us, because they plan to give the rest to someone else 
:-(
2. Are they asking because others are requesting the higher portions of the 
band, that are more advantageous?And wondering whether we consider the lower 
portions more or less advantageous for our use?
3. Is there something wrong or more encombersome with Bands 1-X (7?), that 
we dont know about or do know about?
4. Is VHF ch 1-X (7?) more advantageous, becaue its a band more widely 
available in more places in the US?
(For example, I think some free channels exist in Band 1-7 for the DC 
area, but I'd need to go back and check to verify).
5. How will our Antenna size requirements vary for this portion of the band?

I guess my point is What do we as WISPs really think about the VHF ch 
1-X (7?) compared to the other portions of the Whitespace band?

If the FCC is  hypothetically putting the lower bands out there, what do we 
want to do about it?

Should we make an official statement asking for that part of the band, to 
feed the FCC thoughts for allocation that potentially are already being 
considered, to increase the chances of prompt release? Or should we continue 
pushing for the complete band?

Also After reading the report, it was clear that the FCC trip was highly 
advantageous and a lot was accomplished. I also recognize that the FCC will 
not disclose their full intent on their intent record.  But have we learned 
anything more than we knew from our meeting with Blair, as far as how 
Whitespace will progress? Did we get any updates on the Broadcaster's 
database development for Whitespace?  Is this still in motion towards 
progress? Or has anything gotten stalled relating to the database work, 
because of the possible Whitespace re-organization and re-consideration that 
potentially could still be occuring?

I think we need to make sure the FCC recognizes a couple things and we need 
to be cautious what we do about it Any Whitespace given to unlicensed 
will not likely ever be used for Cellular phone cell sites, obviously. 
They'd want fully licenced for that. But that does not mean that large 
carriers wont use unlicensed Whitespace for special applications, expecially 
public safety. UNlicensed has the unique abilty to go anywhere with little 
advanced planning, and carriers can use that advantage to their benefit, 
just the same as WISPs can. And they do. The wide use of Proxim Lynx radios 
(that use the full 5.8G band per 1 link) by Telcos is proof of that. With 
some carriers pushing for Whitespace Backhaul, it viable that they'd try to 
use Whitespace UNlicensed for backhaul just the same.

Part of the  attraction of TV Whitespace was not only its propogation 
characteristics, but also the large number of channels, so there was enough 
to go around for multiple palyers.
If unlicensed Whitespace is only allocated in a small capacity, our industry 
would continue to get plagued with risk, with little room to move to, if 
interference ever occured.

So it scares me when I hear things like, "what do you think about the first 
7 channels?" It could mean, say goodbye to the rest?

It might be a good idea for WISPs to look up their Whitechannel availabilty 
in their areas, and determine if VHF channels 1-7 are available in their 
territory or not.

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


- Original Message - 
From: "John Scrivner" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC


>I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct. 
>Every
> television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
> with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in 
> the
> VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
> channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue but
> not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
> channels would require more forward error correction to provide high 
> quality
> service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have 
> coverage
> to 100% of my potential customer base.
> John Scrivner
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:
>
>> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
>> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF 
>> band
>> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

Hey Steve,

I use the cable-cos as an example. They get 30Mbit/sec for 6Mhz. (at least
using docsis)

ryan

On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:

> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band
> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees
> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>
> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
> (>800 Mhz).
>
> Someone enlighten me here.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by
> making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> with
> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> ---

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Even assuming we would only have access to the lower VHF portion of the
bands, a 6.3 dBi antenna is a simple, non-intrusive radiator.  Commercial
antennas are available now for 6 meters to give you an idea of sizes and get
you thinking about what the maximum effort would be. The propagation on
these bands could be the enemy as well as the black magic, but let me at
'em; we can make it work.  Again, innovation will be key to usage.

Here is a loop antenna made for 50 MHz.  Properly mounted, they are barely
visible from the street.  I installed a stacked pair of these in a deed
restricted area and nobody knew they were there. 

http://www.m2inc.com/index2.html


Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:56 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band
of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees
and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?

The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
(>800 Mhz). 

Someone enlighten me here.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Awesome report!  Thanks.
Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of the
discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This is a great report good job guys and thank you.  

Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
right.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making
corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with
the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - 

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[John Scrivner]

I am not sure where you get your assumptions but they are not correct. Every
television channel has available 6 MHz of bandwidth and can be modulated
with the same amount of data regardless of where the channel resides in the
VHF or UHF frequency bands. The limiting factor for these lowest VHF
channels is the overall higher noise level which is certainly an issue but
not a deal killer for us. I am guessing that our use of the lowest VHF
channels would require more forward error correction to provide high quality
service. In my opinion this is a minor annoyance to be able to have coverage
to 100% of my potential customer base.
John Scrivner


On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:

> Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
> width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band
> of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
> the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
> customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees
> and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?
>
> The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
> (>800 Mhz).
>
> Someone enlighten me here.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Mike
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Awesome report!  Thanks.
> Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
> turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
> market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
> channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of
> the
> discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
> look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
> necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
> frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
> blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
> pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.
>
> Friendly Regards,
>
> Mike
>
> Mike Gilchrist
> Disruptive Technologist
> Advanced Wireless Express
> P.O. Box 255
> Toledo, IA   52342
> 239.770.6203
> m...@aweiowa.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Steve Barnes
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
> posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
> right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by
> making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> with
> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welc

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

The bandwidth of the radio frequency channel is the major factor that
determines the performance capabilities for data transmission and reception
and not the actual radio frequency of the radio channel. 

There is no difference in the amount of data, or the data speeds that can be
transmitted in the same amount of radio frequency bandwidth, regardless of
the radio frequency band. 

Transmitting more data at higher data rates  requires greater radio
frequency bandwidth.

Realistically, some innovative techniques would need to be used.  Three 1
MHz segments, even in similar, if not contiguous spectrum would be
infinitely usable.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 8:56 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel
width are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band
of 54 Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock
the data through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving
customers more bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees
and I would love it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?

The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration
(>800 Mhz). 

Someone enlighten me here.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Awesome report!  Thanks.
Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of the
discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This is a great report good job guys and thank you.  

Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
right.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making
corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with
the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
Broadband W

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Dylan Bouterse]

I second everybody else's enthusiasm and appreciation for the
committee's efforts here. This is one of the primary reasons we are a
WISPA member and I recommend annual we continue contributing to this
group. Thanks again guys!

Dylan

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com







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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Steve Barnes]

Mike, though I agree that circular polarization could work.  What channel width 
are you going to need to have a usable system.  I mean in the VHF band of 54 
Mhz to 88 Mhz the frequency is to slow to have any ability to clock the data 
through at any worth wile speed. We are supposed to be giving customers more 
bandwidth and faster service.  Yes it would cut through trees and I would love 
it.  But at 2-3X dialup speed?

The upper bands are definitely better but then you lower your penetration (>800 
Mhz). 

Someone enlighten me here.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Mike
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 9:24 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Awesome report!  Thanks.
Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of the
discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This is a great report good job guys and thank you.  

Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
right.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making
corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with
the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com








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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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



WISPA Wan

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Mike]

Awesome report!  Thanks.
Give me equipment capable of 20 watts, circularly polarized sectors, a
turnstile antenna on the CPE, and it would be a perfect fit for THIS rural
market.  At that power level, and circular polarization, I could reuse any
channel on the same tower using opposite circular sense.  I know some of the
discussion in the past on this list led some to believe an antenna would
look like a big TV log periodic, but it just isn't so.  A TV antenna is by
necessity a broadband device, and as such is BIG to handle a RANGE of
frequencies.  A turnstile or other narrow band antenna could be built to
blend with the aesthetics of a home or business.  Heck, if this comes to
pass, I may go into the antenna building business just for this usage.

Friendly Regards,
 
Mike
 
Mike Gilchrist
Disruptive Technologist
Advanced Wireless Express
P.O. Box 255
Toledo, IA   52342
239.770.6203
m...@aweiowa.com
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Steve Barnes
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This is a great report good job guys and thank you.  

Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your
posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to
right.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making
corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with
the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com








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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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






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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[D. Ryan Spott]

L->R

Ryan, John, Alex, Jack and Stephen.

ryan



On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:41 AM, Steve Barnes  wrote:

> This is a great report good job guys and thank you.
>
> Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from  
> your posts.  The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who  
> left to right.
>
> Steve Barnes
> RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]  
> On Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the  
> WISPA Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office  
> of Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in  
> Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips,  
> John Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve  
> Coran of Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we  
> all feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC  
> take favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV  
> Whitespace rules by making corrections to several problem areas,  
> thereby making WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more  
> successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the  
> official written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after  
> every meeting with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint  
> presentation is also required to be part of our written filing. To  
> easily view our presentation, please rotate the attached PDF  
> clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the  
> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 
> www.ask-wi.com 
>   818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> --- 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Steve Barnes]

This is a great report good job guys and thank you.  

Next question.  I don't know any of the team personally just from your posts.  
The picture in the report, can you give us a who's who left to right.

Steve Barnes
RC-WiFi Wireless Internet Service

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf 
Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA 
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering and 
Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John 
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of 
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel that 
the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable action soon 
on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making corrections to 
several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the Whitespaces more 
practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official written 
filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with the FCC. A 
copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be part of our 
written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate the attached PDF 
clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the Broadband 
Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com  
818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com







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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[RickG]

Thats right. Worked well but costs were too high for our customer base
so it never took off.

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 8:18 PM, John Scrivner  wrote:
> Let me guess...Hybrid Technologies. I tried to lease space from Heartland to
> launch the same system but they would not get me access to their spectrum
> under any terms. Spectrum is the key.
> Scriv
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:36 PM, RickG  wrote:
>
>> Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
>> we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
>> with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
>> wrote:
>> > 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
>> > watts. Is this really necessary?
>> >
>> > Kurt Fankhauser
>> > WAVELINC
>> > P.O. Box 126
>> > Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> > 419-562-6405
>> > www.wavelinc.com
>> >
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Ryan Spott
>> > Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
>> > To: WISPA General List
>> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >
>> > This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
>> >
>> > We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
>> >
>> > ryan
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>> >>
>> >> Kurt Fankhauser
>> >> WAVELINC
>> >> P.O. Box 126
>> >> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> >> 419-562-6405
>> >> www.wavelinc.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -Original Message-
>> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> >> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>> >> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>> >> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>> >> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>> >>
>> >> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>> >> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>> >> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>> >> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>> >>
>> >> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>> >> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>> >> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>> >>
>> >> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
>> >> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
>> >> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
>> >> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
>> >> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>> >>
>> >> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
>> >> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
>> >> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
>> >> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
>> >> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
>> >> viewer.
>> >>
>> >> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>> >>
>> >> Respectfully Submitted,
>> >>
>> >> Jack Unger
>> >> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>> >> 818-227-4220
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>> >> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
>> >> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
>> >> 1993
>> >> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> 
>> > 
>> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> >>

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[John Scrivner]

Let me guess...Hybrid Technologies. I tried to lease space from Heartland to
launch the same system but they would not get me access to their spectrum
under any terms. Spectrum is the key.
Scriv


On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:36 PM, RickG  wrote:

> Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
> we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
> with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
> > 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
> > watts. Is this really necessary?
> >
> > Kurt Fankhauser
> > WAVELINC
> > P.O. Box 126
> > Bucyrus, OH 44820
> > 419-562-6405
> > www.wavelinc.com
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> > Behalf Of Ryan Spott
> > Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
> > To: WISPA General List
> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >
> > This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
> >
> > We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
> >
> > ryan
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser 
> wrote:
> >
> >> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
> >>
> >> Kurt Fankhauser
> >> WAVELINC
> >> P.O. Box 126
> >> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> >> 419-562-6405
> >> www.wavelinc.com
> >>
> >>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> >> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> >> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> >> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> >> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
> >>
> >> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> >> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
> >> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> >> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
> >>
> >> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> >> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> >> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
> >>
> >> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
> >> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
> >> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
> >> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
> >> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
> >>
> >> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> >> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> >> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
> >> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
> >> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
> >> viewer.
> >>
> >> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
> >>
> >> Respectfully Submitted,
> >>
> >> Jack Unger
> >> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> >> 818-227-4220
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> >> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> >> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
> >> 1993
> >> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> > 
> >> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> >> http://signup.wispa.org/
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> >>
> >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> > 
> > WI

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[RickG]

Back in the late 90's when I was running an MMDS operation on 2.5MHz,
we used a 100 watt system. We had customers more than 30 miles away
with multi-megabit connections. Give me power!

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 12:15 AM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
> 20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
> watts. Is this really necessary?
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Ryan Spott
> Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.
>
> We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)
>
> ryan
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:
>
>> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>>
>> Kurt Fankhauser
>> WAVELINC
>> P.O. Box 126
>> Bucyrus, OH 44820
>> 419-562-6405
>> www.wavelinc.com
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
>> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>>
>> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
>> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
>> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
>> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>>
>> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
>> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
>> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>>
>> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
>> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
>> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
>> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
>> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>>
>> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
>> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
>> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
>> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
>> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
>> viewer.
>>
>> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>>
>> Respectfully Submitted,
>>
>> Jack Unger
>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>> 818-227-4220
>>
>> --
>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
>> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
>> 1993
>> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>>
> 
> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> 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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Jack Unger]

Depends on the distance and the obstructions. Sometimes yes, sometimes
no. Would you rather have more power than you need or not enough? We
also propose use of automatic transmitter power control so we only use
as much power as we need. 

jack

Kurt Fankhauser wrote:

  20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
watts. Is this really necessary?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.

We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)

ryan

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:

  
  
The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com










  
  

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



  
  

  
  
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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


  
  



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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com









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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Kurt Fankhauser]

20 watt radio's? Going into lets say a 6db antenna? Your looking at 80
watts. Is this really necessary?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Ryan Spott
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 12:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.

We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)

ryan

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:

> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
> viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
> 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>


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


>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>




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


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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




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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Ryan Spott]

This would be UP TO 20 watts at the radio.

We explained how 900 works for most of us. (it sorta does... mostly)

ryan

On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Kurt Fankhauser  wrote:

> The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?
>
> Kurt Fankhauser
> WAVELINC
> P.O. Box 126
> Bucyrus, OH 44820
> 419-562-6405
> www.wavelinc.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of
> Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C.
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all
> feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take
> favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace
> rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making
> WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting
> with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required
> to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation,
> please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader
> viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
> Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
> 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Kurt Fankhauser]

The 20 watt power output request. Is this for total ERP or at the radio?

Kurt Fankhauser
WAVELINC
P.O. Box 126
Bucyrus, OH 44820
419-562-6405
www.wavelinc.com
 
 
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 7:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA 
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John 
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of 
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all 
feel that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take 
favorable action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace 
rules by making corrections to several problem areas, thereby making 
WISP use of the Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official 
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting 
with the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required 
to be part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, 
please rotate the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader 
viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing
Serving the Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since
1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com








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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Scott Reed]

I second Chuck.  Looks very good.

Chuck Profito wrote:
> JACK,  
> Thank you and your team for all your hard work and travels and time away
> from your networks! Excellent changes and Excellent Presentation.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
> Behalf Of Jack Unger
> Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 4:17 PM
> To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC
>
> Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
> Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
> and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
> to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.
>
> The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
> Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
> Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.
>
> All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
> that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
> action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making
> corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
> Whitespaces more practical and more successful.
>
> I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
> written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with
> the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
> part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
> the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.
>
> Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.
>
> Respectfully Submitted,
>
> Jack Unger
> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
> 818-227-4220
>
> --
> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
> Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
> Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
> www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   

-- 
Scott Reed
Sr. Systems Engineer
GAB Midwest
1-800-363-1544 x2241
1-260-827-2241
Cell: 260-273-7239




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] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

[Chuck Profito]

JACK,  
Thank you and your team for all your hard work and travels and time away
from your networks! Excellent changes and Excellent Presentation.

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Jack Unger
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 4:17 PM
To: memb...@wispa.org; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] WISPA TV Whitespaces Meeting with the FCC

Last Wednesday, March 31, the WISPA FCC Committee assisted by the WISPA
Promotions Committee met with top managers of the FCC Office of Engineering
and Technology (OET) at FCC Headquarters in Washington D.C. 
to discuss the status of WISPA's TV Whitespaces filings.

The following Members represented WISPA. Ryan Spott, Alex Phillips, John
Scriver, and Jack Unger. The WISPA Team was assisted by Steve Coran of
Rini/Coran LLC in Washington.

All Team Members made valuable contributions to the effort and we all feel
that the meeting went well. Our goal was to ask the FCC take favorable
action soon on WISPA's Petitions to adjust the TV Whitespace rules by making
corrections to several problem areas, thereby making WISP use of the
Whitespaces more practical and more successful.

I'm attaching a more detailed report (.doc file) and also the official
written filing (PDF) that WISPA is required to make after every meeting with
the FCC. A copy of our FCC PowerPoint presentation is also required to be
part of our written filing. To easily view our presentation, please rotate
the attached PDF clockwise 90 degrees in your Adobe Reader viewer.

Your questions and constructive suggestions are always welcome.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jack Unger
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
818-227-4220

--
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Network Design - Technical Training - Technical Writing Serving the
Broadband Wireless, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993
www.ask-wi.com  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com








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

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

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

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

Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces

[Jack Unger]

Also the assumption that the TVWS rules are the "same as the rules in 
the other bands" is also a far, far stretch. The TVWS rules are clearly 
not "same as the rules in the other bands", not by a long shot.

Chuck McCown wrote:
> That is a grey area.  Not all 15 dBi yagis are created equal.  They all have 
> differen S11 parameters.
> And S11 can cause a "load pull" of a transmitter causing different out of 
> band signal components.
> That is why you will see a list of approved antennas.  Including yagis.
>
> However there is the part of the code that says you can use the same "type" 
> of lower gain.
> And no one at the FCC will stick their neck out far enough to say which one 
> trumps the other.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>
>
>   
>> I don't see how what I said was any different than what Blair said, nor how
>> what Blair said was any indication of using something that wouldn't be
>> approved.
>>
>> If the rules are the same as the rules in other bands, once you have a 15
>> dBi yagi certified with whatever radio you have, all yagis under 15 dBi 
>> are
>> approved.  There's a wealth of TV antennas, cable types, connectors, etc.
>> for the TV industry that we could adopt as our own.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:09 AM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>
>> 
>>> Sorry Mike. I try to limit my time to responding only to serious,
>>> thoughtful comments. I don't normally respond to smart-a** comments
>>> because I just don't have any time to waste on them.
>>>
>>> I expect a more intelligent contribution from someone who works to
>>> achieve "Intelligent" Computing Solutions.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>   
>>>> You "piece" together an Alvarion or Redline IDU and ODU  with a piece of
>>>> IF
>>>> cable.
>>>>
>>>> Just because it requires FCC certification (as does everything) doesn't
>>>> mean
>>>> you can't have antenna selection.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:12 PM
>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks! Something similar (maybe a little more selective and a little
>>>>> more money) might work. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the 75-ohm stuff. It's unlikely that we'll be "piecing" this
>>>>> stuff together. It's more likely that it will be all assembled and
>>>>> certified as a unit. FCC certification is a requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> Here is one kind I found quick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.tinlee.com/bandpass_filters.php?active=1#CFAL
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Winegaurd and Channel Master both made them for CATV  use and for
>>>>>> master antenna distribution systems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That's good. Do you have a url or two?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> And those are available already.  the CATV industry has had them, in
>>>>>>>> 75ohm, for a long time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One thing I really hope for this gear is that the vendors

Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces

[Chuck McCown]

That is a grey area.  Not all 15 dBi yagis are created equal.  They all have 
differen S11 parameters.
And S11 can cause a "load pull" of a transmitter causing different out of 
band signal components.
That is why you will see a list of approved antennas.  Including yagis.

However there is the part of the code that says you can use the same "type" 
of lower gain.
And no one at the FCC will stick their neck out far enough to say which one 
trumps the other.

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces


>I don't see how what I said was any different than what Blair said, nor how
> what Blair said was any indication of using something that wouldn't be
> approved.
>
> If the rules are the same as the rules in other bands, once you have a 15
> dBi yagi certified with whatever radio you have, all yagis under 15 dBi 
> are
> approved.  There's a wealth of TV antennas, cable types, connectors, etc.
> for the TV industry that we could adopt as our own.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:09 AM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>
>> Sorry Mike. I try to limit my time to responding only to serious,
>> thoughtful comments. I don't normally respond to smart-a** comments
>> because I just don't have any time to waste on them.
>>
>> I expect a more intelligent contribution from someone who works to
>> achieve "Intelligent" Computing Solutions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>> You "piece" together an Alvarion or Redline IDU and ODU  with a piece of
>>> IF
>>> cable.
>>>
>>> Just because it requires FCC certification (as does everything) doesn't
>>> mean
>>> you can't have antenna selection.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:12 PM
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks! Something similar (maybe a little more selective and a little
>>>> more money) might work. :)
>>>>
>>>> Regarding the 75-ohm stuff. It's unlikely that we'll be "piecing" this
>>>> stuff together. It's more likely that it will be all assembled and
>>>> certified as a unit. FCC certification is a requirement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Here is one kind I found quick.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.tinlee.com/bandpass_filters.php?active=1#CFAL
>>>>>
>>>>> Winegaurd and Channel Master both made them for CATV  use and for
>>>>> master antenna distribution systems
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's good. Do you have a url or two?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And those are available already.  the CATV industry has had them, in
>>>>>>> 75ohm, for a long time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One thing I really hope for this gear is that the vendors decide to
>>>>>>> make 75ohm gear.  There is a HUGE amount of stuff already out there
>>>>>>> that we can use if they do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's a very good idea on the transmit side. Remember that our AP
>>>>>>>> receivers will also need a VERY sharp filter ($$$) to keep the
>>>>>>>> adjacent
>>>>>>>> channel TV signal from overloading it and reducing the reception
>>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>>> to .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jack
>>>>>>>>
>>>>&

Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces

[Mike Hammett]

I don't see how what I said was any different than what Blair said, nor how 
what Blair said was any indication of using something that wouldn't be 
approved.

If the rules are the same as the rules in other bands, once you have a 15 
dBi yagi certified with whatever radio you have, all yagis under 15 dBi are 
approved.  There's a wealth of TV antennas, cable types, connectors, etc. 
for the TV industry that we could adopt as our own.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



--
From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 12:09 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces

> Sorry Mike. I try to limit my time to responding only to serious,
> thoughtful comments. I don't normally respond to smart-a** comments
> because I just don't have any time to waste on them.
>
> I expect a more intelligent contribution from someone who works to
> achieve "Intelligent" Computing Solutions.
>
>
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> You "piece" together an Alvarion or Redline IDU and ODU  with a piece of 
>> IF
>> cable.
>>
>> Just because it requires FCC certification (as does everything) doesn't 
>> mean
>> you can't have antenna selection.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:12 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>
>>
>>> Thanks! Something similar (maybe a little more selective and a little
>>> more money) might work. :)
>>>
>>> Regarding the 75-ohm stuff. It's unlikely that we'll be "piecing" this
>>> stuff together. It's more likely that it will be all assembled and
>>> certified as a unit. FCC certification is a requirement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is one kind I found quick.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tinlee.com/bandpass_filters.php?active=1#CFAL
>>>>
>>>> Winegaurd and Channel Master both made them for CATV  use and for
>>>> master antenna distribution systems
>>>>
>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's good. Do you have a url or two?
>>>>>
>>>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And those are available already.  the CATV industry has had them, in
>>>>>> 75ohm, for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One thing I really hope for this gear is that the vendors decide to
>>>>>> make 75ohm gear.  There is a HUGE amount of stuff already out there
>>>>>> that we can use if they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a very good idea on the transmit side. Remember that our AP
>>>>>>> receivers will also need a VERY sharp filter ($$$) to keep the
>>>>>>> adjacent
>>>>>>> channel TV signal from overloading it and reducing the reception 
>>>>>>> range
>>>>>>> to .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jack
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For adjacent channel use, we don't have to use a 6 MHz channel.  We
>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>> use 5 or 4 or whatever it takes to make it work.
>>>>>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>>>>>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:32 PM
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Directional antennas and other interference-avoidance techniques
>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>&

Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces

[John Valenti]

see Antenna Requirements on page 101. Fixed device transmit antenna
limited to MAX 30 meters high, also the receive antenna must be MIN 10  
meter high.

On Nov 20, 2008, at 2:48 AM, Jack Unger wrote:

> I don't think Fresnel is going to be too much of a problem. Which page
> did you pick up that antenna height requirement from?




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] TV Whitespaces

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Could be.  There's certainly a lot to remember

Either way, we do need to stay involved with the issue to the degree that we 
can.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces


> I'm still only about half way through, but I thought it was 2 years.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 3:43 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>
>> They did state that they plan to take another look at this band in 5
>> years.
>>
>> 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: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:04 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps once TVWS gets used and it proves a success, then they will open
>>> up
>>> adjacent channels.
>>> Once they do that there will be holes everywhere.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 12:58 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>>
>>>
>>>> Joe,
>>>>
>>>> The White Spaces are the unused television channels. In most major 
>>>> metro
>>>> areas, many of the channels are in use by television broadcasters and
>>>> other licensed users. Outside of major metro areas, there will be 
>>>> unused
>>>> channels available that you can use. In general, the more rural you 
>>>> are,
>>>> the more channels will be available.
>>>>
>>>> jack
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe Laura wrote:
>>>>> Am I hearing correctly that this new space can only be utilized in
>>>>> rural
>>>>> areas? Not for Citys like New Orleans? TIA
>>>>> Joe Laura
>>>>> Superior Alarm/Wireless
>>>>> New Orleans,La.
>>>>> www.superior1.com
>>>>>   - Original Message - 
>>>>>   From: Blair Davis
>>>>>   To: WISPA General List
>>>>>   Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 5:47 PM
>>>>>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Ubquity?  Some kind of mini-pci card?
>>>>>
>>>>>   Charles Wyble wrote:
>>>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>>>   Now that TV whitespaces have been approved for our use, let's hear
>>>>> from
>>>>> the vendors.  When, how much, and what will you do with it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed!
>>>>>
>>>>> Who would the likely vendors in this space be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Should we put an RFP together and send it around?  I sure want answers
>>>>> to your questions as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   Ladies and gents:  I haven't read all of the published information
>>>>> yet,
>>>>> but this is the second greatest battle we have come across (second 
>>>>> only
>>>>> to having unlicensed available in the first place) and we have won!
>>>>> Congrats.  It appears the portable devices are held to 100 mw of 
>>>>> power,
>>>>> while we have 4 watts (which is pretty much what we have everywhere
>>>>> else).  Four watts at these frequencies will carry!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>>> 

Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces

[Jack Unger]

Butch,

Your analysis looks good. I'm still reading through the rules and I WILL 
be commenting just as soon as I get through it all. :)

I don't think Fresnel is going to be too much of a problem. Which page 
did you pick up that antenna height requirement from?

jack


Butch Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Jack Unger wrote:
>
>   
>> Sorry Mike. I try to limit my time to responding only to serious, 
>> thoughtful comments. I don't normally respond to smart-a** comments 
>> because I just don't have any time to waste on them.
>> 
>
> Ouch!  :-)
>
> Has anyone done an RF propagation study in your area for the TVWS? 
> I just did a quick check in RM for my area.  I used the following 
> parameters:
>
> 10 Meter antenna height (both ends)
> 4W EIRP (1+3) Omni
> Channel 51 (should be the "worst case" propagation)
>
> Using the polar coverage, I am seeing over 16 MILES at -104 RX 
> sensitivity.  About 11 miles is -90.  At about 8 miles is the -80s 
> and 4 miles is -60s.
>
> I will be trying this with a 10 meter antenna talking to a 100mW 
> device next (for indoor installs) just to see what happens.
>
> The WORST problem I see with this is Fresnel.  It is NUTS!  Maybe 
> Fresnel problems are not as big an issue with this low of a 
> frequency, but if it is, I can't see using more than a 3-4 mile cell 
> as the antenna heights would be crazy.
>
> Jack, care to comment on the characteristics to be concerned about 
> in this band?  IS fresnel gonna be a problem?  What about antenna 
> heights due to the 10 meter requirement (WHAT were they smoking?).
>
>   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
WISPs - Do you know where your customers are?
For wireless coverage mapping see http://www.ask-wi.com/mapping
FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile 
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] TV Whitespaces

[Butch Evans]

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Jack Unger wrote:

>Sorry Mike. I try to limit my time to responding only to serious, 
>thoughtful comments. I don't normally respond to smart-a** comments 
>because I just don't have any time to waste on them.

Ouch!  :-)

Has anyone done an RF propagation study in your area for the TVWS? 
I just did a quick check in RM for my area.  I used the following 
parameters:

10 Meter antenna height (both ends)
4W EIRP (1+3) Omni
Channel 51 (should be the "worst case" propagation)

Using the polar coverage, I am seeing over 16 MILES at -104 RX 
sensitivity.  About 11 miles is -90.  At about 8 miles is the -80s 
and 4 miles is -60s.

I will be trying this with a 10 meter antenna talking to a 100mW 
device next (for indoor installs) just to see what happens.

The WORST problem I see with this is Fresnel.  It is NUTS!  Maybe 
Fresnel problems are not as big an issue with this low of a 
frequency, but if it is, I can't see using more than a 3-4 mile cell 
as the antenna heights would be crazy.

Jack, care to comment on the characteristics to be concerned about 
in this band?  IS fresnel gonna be a problem?  What about antenna 
heights due to the 10 meter requirement (WHAT were they smoking?).

-- 

* 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] TV Whitespaces

[Jack Unger]

Sorry Mike. I try to limit my time to responding only to serious, 
thoughtful comments. I don't normally respond to smart-a** comments 
because I just don't have any time to waste on them.

I expect a more intelligent contribution from someone who works to 
achieve "Intelligent" Computing Solutions.



Mike Hammett wrote:
> You "piece" together an Alvarion or Redline IDU and ODU  with a piece of IF 
> cable.
>
> Just because it requires FCC certification (as does everything) doesn't mean 
> you can't have antenna selection.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:12 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>
>   
>> Thanks! Something similar (maybe a little more selective and a little
>> more money) might work. :)
>>
>> Regarding the 75-ohm stuff. It's unlikely that we'll be "piecing" this
>> stuff together. It's more likely that it will be all assembled and
>> certified as a unit. FCC certification is a requirement.
>>
>>
>> Blair Davis wrote:
>> 
>>> Here is one kind I found quick.
>>>
>>> http://www.tinlee.com/bandpass_filters.php?active=1#CFAL
>>>
>>> Winegaurd and Channel Master both made them for CATV  use and for
>>> master antenna distribution systems
>>>
>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>   
>>>> That's good. Do you have a url or two?
>>>>
>>>> Blair Davis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>> And those are available already.  the CATV industry has had them, in
>>>>> 75ohm, for a long time.
>>>>>
>>>>> One thing I really hope for this gear is that the vendors decide to
>>>>> make 75ohm gear.  There is a HUGE amount of stuff already out there
>>>>> that we can use if they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>   
>>>>>> That's a very good idea on the transmit side. Remember that our AP
>>>>>> receivers will also need a VERY sharp filter ($$$) to keep the 
>>>>>> adjacent
>>>>>> channel TV signal from overloading it and reducing the reception range
>>>>>> to .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jack
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For adjacent channel use, we don't have to use a 6 MHz channel.  We 
>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>> use 5 or 4 or whatever it takes to make it work.
>>>>>>> - Original Message - 
>>>>>>> From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 1:32 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV Whitespaces
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>> Directional antennas and other interference-avoidance techniques 
>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>> help but for mass-market use (which is how the vendors visualize the
>>>>>>>> TVWS) I suspect that it's going to be a long time before 1st 
>>>>>>>> adjacent
>>>>>>>> channel use will be practical. Still, gaining access to most of the
>>>>>>>> non-1st adjacent channels white space is still a big "win" for the 
>>>>>>>> WISP
>>>>>>>> industry.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chuck McCown wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hopefully forward error correction and directional antennas will 
>>>>>>>>> make it
>>>>>>>>> possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>