We need more spectrum that is *our* spectrum not just spectrum to have spectrum. Sure we have what we have but we are sharing it with devices other than what we use that help trash it.
John > > Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. > Sadly I cannot find that statement. > > I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we > should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their > spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things > to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of > bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. > > Lonnie > > > On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marlon and Lonnie, > > > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > suggest > > rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. > > > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in > > these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to > every > > ounce of spectrum that we can. > > > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way > to > > have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna > > requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost > > effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for > the > > band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I > think > > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it > usable > > for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was > reduced > > down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty > easy > > getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, > > excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are > talking > > about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean > much > > unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or > > Trango :-) > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > List" > > <wireless@wispa.org> > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's > > >licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we > want > > > to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because > some > > > minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? > > > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not > all > > > that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear > because > > > you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed > gear > > > it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once > told me > > > that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. > > > Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to > happen > > > that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those > issues. > > > Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You > have > > > protection against that. > > > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or > 900. > > > He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy > toys > > > won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's > > > getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull > some > > > ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. > > > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good > > > Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the > > > potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do > the > > > rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that > gives > > > us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad > things > > > is a good thing to try to do. > > > > > > Marlon > > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > > > 42846865 (icq) And I run my own > wisp! > > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > > > > > APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance > > > is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the > > > transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your > > > lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. > > > > > > I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple > > > rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of > > > polluting it for close in shots. > > > > > > You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you > > > continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and > > > wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot > > > antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just > > > over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), > > > yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power > > > cards. > > > > > > In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take > > > the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas > > > if the rules get changed as you are proposing. > > > > > > I say that is a mistake. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Lonnie > > > > > > > > > On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Hi All, > > >> > > >> For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's > a > > >> pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very > long > > >> distances. > > >> > > >> For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often > kills > > >> the > > >> deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the > building > > >> owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > >> > > >> Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road > it's > > >> a > > >> tough rule to deal with. > > >> > > >> I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the > > >> person > > >> at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > >> > > >> I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna > rule > > >> for > > >> the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in > the > > >> band > > >> due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic > power > > >> control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > >> > > >> Thoughts? > > >> Marlon > > >> (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > >> (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > > >> 42846865 (icq) And I run my own > wisp! > > >> 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > >> www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > >> www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > >> > > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > >> > > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Lonnie Nunweiler > > > Valemount Networks Corporation > > > http://www.star-os.com/ > > > -- > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > -- > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > -- > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > > > Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.1/64 - Release Date: > 8/4/2005 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
