Tom DeReggi wrote:
Because its greedy.
Its not greedy; efficient maybe, but not greedy.
And when your competitors is unsensitive to the fact that you are
greedy, he combats your spectrum/radio, and you or he has no where to
go (spectrum wise) for a resolution, he will win because he doesn;t
have customers yet, and you do, so you will move to protect your
revenue. Basically by using the full band, you are guaranteeing that
anyone that deploys has no choice but to fight you for spectrum,
meaning any channel they choose will interfere with you. Sure you can
go narrow beam antenna, but its jsut a matter of time until someone
bangs into you.
The above confuses me. In the situation where I have a PtP radio using
the full band there is no colocation opportunity for a competitor on
either side. That means the competitor would have be on a site near by
to be affected by me and/or to affect me. If this hypothetical
competitor doesn't have any customers then the deployment must be PtMP
base station since a PtP wouldn't be very useful without a customer.
Certainly the power output from a PtMP base station is going to be
considerably less than my PtP link making it unlikely my equipment would
be affected. Further, equipment that uses large channel widths tend to
run simple modulations that have very good receive sensitivity.
The question that one asks is WHY? If you ahve an option that doesn't
take the whole band, why would you choose one that does? Those
decissions don't usually make friends, and non-friends tend to interfere.
When you put the question that way, sure, it seems silly. However, that
assumes there is another option, which isn't necessarily the case. In
fact, reading this thread so far seems to indicate that the available
high throughput unlicensed radios have large channel widths.
-Matt
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
