Tom, Dang you got this all wrong. Let's make sure we understand what Alvarion's comments said so everyone understands. Our comment breaking the band in two was to strip rural and suburban from the top 100 US markets. Top 100 markets split in two 25 Mhz chunks and licensed with the REST of the US being UL. There is plenty of broadband in those top 100 markets. The FCC's intent for the 3650 band is suburbs and rural access.
" There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification." That's just not correct. What we don't want to do is build a product that you'll have to rip out and replace because it doesn't meet the future spec.... when we finally get a ruling on what the product should look and smell like then most will invest and deliver a product. "Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that?" The 3650 is a rural broadband play getting you access to your own spectrum to serve those customers without having to compete with baby monitors and wifi gear on every street corner. Innovation won't take place unless the FCC takes a stand on technology. IMHO what we don't need is a bunch more inefficient 20 mhz spectrum hogs at sub 10 meg speeds or worse. And to say Alvarion is fighting improved policy is a stretch. Tom, I really think you need to reread our filings or maybe stop listening to those who may have an axe to grind. Brad -----Original Message----- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:37 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >In other words, the number of > licenses is infinite. Yes, but you leave out that there is a requirement to attempt to coexist, or cooperate to attempt to co-exist. And it brings out into the open, all possible interferers, where they are located, and how to contact them. It will be an interesting science project, to see if registration apposed to operation in stealth mode (typical unlicened) helps or hinders the ability for more providers to cooexist. And quite honestly, I think its an experiment that has to be had, t oreally see what happens. The outcome could help shape the viabilty of future spectrum policy. One thing I definately did NOT agree with, was Alvarion's FCC comments suggesting breaking the band in two. The band MUST stay for one cause. The reason is that people need the ability to move and adapt within their available spectrum range channels. Narrowing channel selection down to the point where all channels are used to get 360 degrees, is foolish, and just repeats the limitations of the existing 5.8Ghz band, that has twice the spectrum range. I also beleive that basing a business model or rules on 5 Mhz channels, the maximum smallest viable size that would make sense, is also foolish, as it leaves little room (overhead) for margin. However, I was in favor of limiting channel width to 10 Mhz, but not any requirement that required channel size less than 10 mhz. This level, incourages efficient systems, without excessive limitations. I also did not care if it stayed contention based or time based, as long as it all just stayed the same method, all contiguous space for the same purpose. I also was strongly against Full licensed. As the only thing that benefits is the huge telecom company, single provider's use models, and exclude competiton and possible innovators. The whole point in 3650 was to attempt to find a balance between licensed and unlicenced. I felt Alvarion's position on this spectrum range's use was very harmful to Alvarion's reputation. Its not only important to incourage innovation and more efficient use of technology but also more innovative and efficient Policy. The attempted 3650 rules were to foster improved policy. Why would anyone fight that? The only flaw with the 3650 allocation, is the stipulation for Contention based, without a contention based hardware platform available or in engineering phase designed for the spectrum range. Its was innovative rules prior to innovative technology, and therefore left unused. There are MANY WISPs ready to go and test the 3650 allocation, but it is the manufacturers that are squashing the viabilty of the band by not having the balls to make gear to meet the specification. I also do not support the use of more than half the band for a single PtP link. The reason is that PtP links already are much more capable of using higher modulations, based on higher power more directional antennas to escape the noise and improve SNR. When the whole band is allowed for PTP, it replicates the same flaw as existing unlicened where a single PTP radio can be pointed at a cell site, or pass through a cell site, and totally destroy it without anywhere for the existing provider to temporarilly move to, until resolved. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Leary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:49 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > Matt, > I am not sure you understand the rules as written in terms of the light > licensing. Whatever goes unlicensed with the light licensing > (registration) > compenent, whether it is the whole 50MHz of band or some portion there of, > there is no exclusivity. That means that any number of people can apply > for > get a license for the exact same location. In other words, the number of > licenses is infinite. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:34 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment > > There is only 50Mhz available if I recall, so how many licensees can > their be if each is given multiple 5Mhz channels? If only one or two > companies are allowed to play in a given market then I expect 3.65Ghz to > miss the market. > > -Matt > > Patrick Leary wrote: > >>Matt, with WiMAX, a 5GHz channel is enough to deliver over 17Mbps net (ftp >>type net) per sector. I was not referring to 5MHz licenses as you assumed, >>but only 5MHz PMP gear qualifying for use. You could use 20MHz if you >>wanted, but each radio itself would use no more than 5MHz unless it was a >>PTP radio. >> >>Patrick >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 7:59 PM >>To: WISPA General List >>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >> >>The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered >>bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but >>sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the >>shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I >>don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be >>interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive >>spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a >>WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service >>operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile >>service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). >>Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create "3G me too" >>services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures >>would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, >>but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. >> >>-Matt >> >>Patrick Leary wrote: >> >> >> >>>Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz >>> >>> >>in >> >> >>>900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power > primary >>>users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should > have >>>the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. >>>Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. >>> >>>I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into > something >>>like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the >>>entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which > case >>>the entire range should be usable. >>> >>>Patrick >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>> >>>Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. >>> >>>-Matt >>> >>>Patrick Leary wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed >>>> >>>> >>3.65 >> >> >>>>product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I >>>>am >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>in >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>utility >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I >>>>support essentially splitting the band. >>>> >>>>Patrick Leary >>>>AVP Marketing >>>>Alvarion, Inc. >>>>o: 650.314.2628 >>>>c: 760.580.0080 >>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM >>>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>> >>>>Hi Patrick, >>>> >>>>But all the "fancy schmancy" technology you implement won't do @#$@ > unless >>>>3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area >>>>(including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you >>>>for >>>>breakfast, lunch & dinner =( >>>> >>>>-Charles >>>> >>>>------------------------------------------- >>>>CWLab >>>>Technology Architects >>>>http://www.cwlab.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>>Behalf Of Patrick Leary >>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM >>>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>> >>>> >>>>A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding >>>>much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. >>>> >>>>Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other >>>> >>>> >>factors >> >> >>>>are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>version >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the > base >>>>station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>SIM >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation > and >>>>you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. >>>> >>>>Patrick Leary >>>>AVP Marketing >>>>Alvarion, Inc. >>>>o: 650.314.2628 >>>>c: 760.580.0080 >>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243 >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM >>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>3.5Ghz does, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we >>>>rely >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>on >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>900Mhz. >>>> >>>>What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? >>>> >>>>With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP >>>> >>>> >>or >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. >>>> >>>>Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. >>>> >>>>Tom DeReggi >>>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>> >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "jeffrey thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:02 AM >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The benchmark is the ability to provide NLOS, portable or fixed >>>>>service to at least a 2 mile radius per cell, indoors. >>>>> >>>>>5.8 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors >>>>> >>>>>5.4 doesnt really give true NLOS to that distance indoors >>>>> >>>>>4.9 doesnt really give true NLOS to that disance indoors >>>>> >>>>>3.5Ghz does, to "portable" devices similar to the equipment used by >>>>>clearwire. Airspan for example claims their wimax solution works >>>>>indoors to about 3 miles out, which is pretty good IMHO. >>>>> >>>>>When you can deliver a zero truck roll model with 90% or above >>>>>availablity, is when operators by the truckload will deploy equipment. >>>>>At that point, you will see deployments in the thousands, like the >>>>>ones in mexico of 750,000 homes serviced. >>>>> >>>>>- >>>>> >>>>>Jeff >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:20:23 -0400, "Tom DeReggi" >>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>How do you figure? >>>>>>You don't think 5.4 is going to solve part of that? >>>>>> >>>>>>Tom DeReggi >>>>>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>>>From: "Jeffrey Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:55 PM >>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Frankly, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The FCC should really hurry up and finish the rules to allow the >>>>>>>industry >>>>>>>to >>>>>>>really take off. The common view with most manufacturers I have found >>>>>>>is >>>>>>>that until there is 3.5ghz or near spectrum available, there will be >>>>>>>small >>>>>>>and limited deployments of wisp size and not many large scale >>>>>>>deployments >>>>>>>outside of 2.5ghz or 700 mhz operators. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jeff >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On 5/24/06 6:14 AM, "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>All the same time, the industry doesn't bother to fill out their >>>>>>>>Form 477s also >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The sad thing is is that there are long term consequences towards >>>>>>>>"flaunting the rules" -- namely the fact that you are just >>>>>>>>reinforcing the ILEC argument that unlicensed spectrum just >>>>>>>>creates a bunch of "cowboys" that >>>>>>>>can't be taken seriously >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Heck, even Marlon knows better than to wear his skin-tight pink >>>>>>>>flamingo >>>>>>>>suit when he represents the industry in DC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-Charles >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>CWLab >>>>>>>>Technology Architects >>>>>>>>http://www.cwlab.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>On >>>>>>>>Behalf Of jeffrey thomas >>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 11:37 PM >>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>>>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In the larger scale of things- when you compare this to a carrier >>>>>>>>deployment which would deliver thousands of CPE's service, this is >>>>>>>>a test. I know >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>of >>>>>>>>one company that has recieved 28 STA's for 14 markets, for over >>>>>>>>2000 >>>>>>>>CPE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jeff >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 21:33:33 -0400, "Gino A. Villarini" >>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Do you really think towerstream need 150 field units or cpes to >>>>>>>>>"test" >>>>>>>>>a single base station? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini >>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>>>>>tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 9:07 PM >>>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Gino, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Is Towerstream doing this - using 3650 to deliver commercial >>>>>>>>>service? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>jack >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Towerstream anyone ? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Gino A. Villarini >>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>>Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. >>>>>>>>>>tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145 >>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>>On Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 6:56 PM >>>>>>>>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>>>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Jeffrey, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I have to question the "judgement ability" (or the lack of it) >>>>>>>>>>of anyone who abuses the FCC rules to the extent of taking a >>>>>>>>>>licensed "experimental" system and using it for a commercial, >>>>>>>>>>revenue-generating >>>>>>>>>>purpose. Someone who would do this is (IMHO): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>1. Someone with no business sense >>>>>>>>>>2. Someone with no appreciation of (or experience with) the >>>>>>>>>>enforcement powers of the FCC >>>>>>>>>>3. Someone who will likely turn out to be their own worst enemy >>>>>>>>>>4. NOT someone who I could rely upon to provide me reliable, >>>>>>>>>>long-term >>>>>>>>>>WISP service. >>>>>>>>>> jack >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>jeffrey thomas wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Patrick, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>It doesnt change the fact that many have launched "limited" >>>>>>>>>>>deployments as a "test" but still charged for the access >>>>>>>>>>>service, banking on the fact that the FCC has set the band >>>>>>>>>>>aside for unlicensed anyways, and that the chance of the FCC >>>>>>>>>>>cracking down on them is very low. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Im not saying this is right, but reality is such that they will >>>>>>>>>>>be evenutally amending the rules and the gear according to my >>>>>>>>>>>sources that is available today will be compliant. *shrug* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>- >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Jeff >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Tue, 23 May 2006 12:37:11 -0700, "Patrick Leary" >>>>>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Exactly, it clearly shows that an operator today CANNOT launch >>>>>>>>>>>>any commercial services using 3650MHz. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>- Patrick >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>>>>From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 8:40 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>To: 'WISPA General List' >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Read below and you can decide on whether or not you will be >>>>>>>>>>>>"breaking the law" w/ a 3650 deployment >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>--------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>Cc: <isp-wireless@isp-wireless.com>; >>>>>>>>>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:32 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>Subject: [equipment-l] Experimental Licensing in the 3650 MHz >>>>>>>>>>>>Band - >>>>>>>>>>>>Clarifications >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Recently, there have been some misleading advertisements >>>>>>>>>>>>promising turn-key 3.65 GHz licensing services as a means of >>>>>>>>>>>>avoiding interference in congested license-exempt ISM/UNII >>>>>>>>>>>>bands. Although the FCC issued adopted rules >>>>>>>>>>>>back >>>>>>>>>>>>in March 2005 to open access to new spectrum for wireless >>>>>>>>>>>>broadband >>>>>>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>3.65 GHz band, a "minor" contention-based requirement has >>>>>>>>>>>>delayed > >>>>>>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>>>>>deployment of wireless broadband services in this band as >>>>>>>>>>>>equipment >>>>>>>>>>>>manufacturers currently work behind the scenes to iron out the >>>>>>>>>>>>details. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>As >>>>>>>>>>>>things currently stand, deploying a 3.65 GHz system today >>>>>>>>>>>>falls >>>>>>>>>>>>under >>>>>>>>>>>>Subpart 5: Experimental Radio Service of the FCC Rules. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Infrastructure Investment & Experimentation under Part 5 needs >>>>>>>>>>>>to be done strictly from a "curiosity" perspective rather than >>>>>>>>>>>>one of "commercial network expansion." Part 5 permits >>>>>>>>>>>>experimentation in scientific or technical operations directly >>>>>>>>>>>>related to the use of radio waves. The rules provide the >>>>>>>>>>>>opportunity to experiment with new techniques or new services >>>>>>>>>>>>prior to submitting proposals to the FCC to change its rules. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Some useful excerpts regarding Experimental Licensing >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>47CFR5.3: Scope of Service >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Stations operating in the Experimental Radio Service will be >>>>>>>>>>>>permitted to conduct the following type of operations: >>>>>>>>>>>>(a) Experimentations in scientific or technical radio >>>>>>>>>>>>research >>>>>>>>>>>>(b) Experimentations under contractual agreement with the > United >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>States >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Government, or for export purposes. >>>>>>>>>>>>(c) Communications essential to a research project. >>>>>>>>>>>>(d) Technical demonstrations of equipment or techniques. >>>>>>>>>>>>(e) Field strength surveys by persons not eligible for >>>>>>>>>>>>authorization >>>>>>>>>>>>in >>>>>>>>>>>>any other service. >>>>>>>>>>>>(f) Demonstration of equipment to prospective purchasers by >>>>>>>>>>>>persons >>>>>>>>>>>>engaged in the business of selling radio equipment. >>>>>>>>>>>>(g) Testing of equipment in connection with production or >>>>>>>>>>>>regulatory >>>>>>>>>>>>approval of such equipment. >>>>>>>>>>>>(h) Development of radio technique, equipment or engineering >>>>>>>>>>>>data >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>related to an existing or proposed service, including field or >>>>>>>>>>>>factory testing or calibration of equipment. >>>>>>>>>>>>(i) Development of radio technique, equipment, operational >>>>>>>>>>>>data >>>>>>>>>>>>or >>>>>>>>>>>>engineering data related to an existing or proposed radio > service. >>>>>>>>>>>>(j) Limited market studies. >>>>>>>>>>>>(k) Types of experiments that are not specifically covered > under >>>>>>>>>>>>paragraphs (a) through (j) of this section will be considered >>>>>>>>>>>>upon demonstration of need >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>47CFR5.51: Eligibility of License >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>(a) Authorizations for stations in the Experimental Radio >>>>>>>>>>>>Service >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>will >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>be >>>>>>>>>>>>issued only to persons qualified to conduct experimentation >>>>>>>>>>>>utilizing radio waves for scientific or technical operation >>>>>>>>>>>>data directly related to a use of radio not provided by >>>>>>>>>>>>existing rules; or for communications in connection >>>>>>>>>>>>with research projects when existing communications facilities > are >>>>>>>>>>>>inadequate. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>47CFR5.63: Supplementary Statements >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>(a) Each applicant for an authorization in the Experimental >>>>>>>>>>>>Radio >>>>>>>>>>>>Service >>>>>>>>>>>>must enclose with the application a narrative statement >>>>>>>>>>>>describing in detail the program of research and >>>>>>>>>>>>experimentation proposed, the specific objectives sought to be >>>>>>>>>>>>accomplished; and how the program of experimentation >>>>>>>>>>>>has a reasonable promise of contribution to the development, >>>>>>>>>>>>extension, >>>>>>>>>>>>or >>>>>>>>>>>>expansion, or utilization of the radio art, or is along lines >>>>>>>>>>>>not >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>already >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>investigated. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>For further information regarding experimental licensing, the >>>>>>>>>>>>FCC has a nice online FAQ that gives a step-by-step how-to on >>>>>>>>>>>>experimental licensing: >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/elbfaqs.html >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>------------------------------------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>CWLab >>>>>>>>>>>>Technology Architects >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.cwlab.com >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>******************************************************************* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>****** >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>** >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>******** >>>>>>>>>>>>This footnote confirms that this email message has been >>>>>>>>>>>>scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious >>>>>>>>>>>>code, vandals & computer viruses. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>************************************************************************ * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>** >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>******** >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>******************************************************************* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>****** >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>** >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>******** >>>>>>>>>>>>This footnote confirms that this email message has been >>>>>>>>>>>>scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious >>>>>>>>>>>>code, vandals & computer viruses. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>************************************************************************ * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>** >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>******** >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>>>>WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >>>>>>>>>>>>http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>>Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >>>>>>>>>Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of >>>>>>>>>the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True >>>>>>>>>Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting >>>>>>>>>Our next WISP Workshop is June 21-22 in Atlanta, GA. Phone (VoIP >>>>>>>>>Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.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/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>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/ > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > **************************************************************************** > ******** > > > > > > > > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by > PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer > viruses. > **************************************************************************** > ******** > > > -- > 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/ **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** **************************************************************************** ******** This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals & computer viruses. **************************************************************************** ******** -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
