I get a kick out of these discussions. First, if the people that think
we're all illegal operators think that the 5 or 10 very vocal ones on a
couple of emails lists represent they whole industry they are being less
than honest with anyone. MOST operators are good and honest. Not all of
them are anymore than all are in any industry. Personally, I wish that
those that love to brag about flaunting the rules would be run up the
official flag pole.....
Second, the talk about WISPA doing anything to those companies isn't helpful
either. WISPA isn't nearly powerful enough yet. Hopefully some day it will
be. But we're just not there yet. What WISPA can, should, and has done is
to always take the side of the law. We have lawyers working on the CALEA
issue. We have a team of WISPs going to DC NEXT week (not as WISPA
representatives but as WISPA members) to talk to the FCC about their
businesses, current market trends etc. If I were going I'd also talk about
how damaging the almost total lack of enforcement is being to the industry
and our customers. They'll be talking to the chief of the FBI's CALEA
group. Hopefully something similar to the FCC's Form 477 FAQ #8 will come
of it (for those that have never read the FAQ, #8 tells the WISP EXACTLY
what he needs to fill out on the form, it makes this a brainless process).
They are also going to meet with the Federal Trade Commission's broadband
group.
WISPA also has a code of ethics. For those that have never read it:
http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=3
As a trade org that represents the industry we have worked hard to make sure
that people KNOW what the rules and laws are. If you have an issue you
aren't sure of, ask, someone here will know the answer or where to get the
answer. We have a couple of lawyers that hang around our industry and love
to be helpful to the WISP community. We have technicians, engineers,
marketing whizzes, management pros etc. here.
To even think that the few that advocate flaunting the rules represent our
industry is plain silly. To think that the licensed community, DSL
companies, cable companies etc. etc. etc. want us to succeed is also silly.
They will do and say anything to destroy our industry. We are THE ONE
industry that can possibly compete with them over the next 10 or 20 or 50
years. And as the technology gets better, as spectrum becomes more
available, as standards become more widely accepted, we're going to be ever
more powerful. The big boys understand money and competition. Not customer
service and reputation. We have a huge edge in the long term.
I used to think that fiber was the next logical broadband evolution. That
eventually all of the copper would be pulled out of service and fiber put in
in it's place. Now I'm not so sure. Cell phones are where it's at today.
I think that as soon as someone builds a pbx that will use the cell phone as
a person's extension line and make it easy to put people on hold, transfer
calls etc., the desk phone will go by by. There's not much that can be done
with the average extension phone that can't be done with a cell phone, and
then some.
I am actually much more worried about some form of cell phone broadband than
I am about fiber to the home today. I think the traditional phone company
is going to end up going the way of the buggy maker. Sure they had a good
run for a long time. But people's priorities and habits are clearly
changing.
I think we're actually likely to see the broadband industry, especially the
wireless one, take over all communications services in the next couple of
decades.
The genie is out of the bottle. People love their laptops (well, everything
but those worthless mouse pads and keyboards) and will take them everywhere.
The need for spectrum is clear and the demand is JUST really gaining ground.
The WISP industry is tracking nicely with the dialup industry from 1995 or
1997 as near as I can tell. We're probably near our peak number or
operators and at a fraction of our peak customer bases. I think in another
3 years our growth will level off quite a bit. At least from a current
technology operator's point of view.
The pressure on the regulators and congress to give use the tools needed to
service the masses with broadband anywhere they go is ramping up. Look at
the massive amounts of time, money and energy that is being poured into muni
networks right now. Those will eventually fail due to the way government
naturally operates. But in the long run the demand for the services will
not fail. It used to be that the cities were the telco's and power
companies. A few of those old models survive but most failed and private
industry moved into the gap.
We need to keep the pressure on our rogue operators. We need to keep the
pressure on our vendors that don't follow or teach to the rules. And we
need government to either pass rules that accept today's reality or enforce
the rules as they exist.
laters,
marlon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:19 AM
Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
I have kept pretty silent watching all the grandstanding. But Marty
brings up an excellent point. The licensed operators are using the
flaunting of the laws as good reason to not give you any more UL
spectrum. I have seen and heard this first hand. You guys can throw all
the darts you want but I'm starting to see your boat go upstream and
you're in a canoe without a paddle.
Use the spectrum wisely and by the law. Those wisps that don't heed the
law need to be taken behind the woodshed and publicly flogged by a group
of their peers until they get with the program. Manufacturers should get
the same treatment. This would be a good organization to start such a
program. Rich had some excellent feedback on what other org's have done
and if I were you guys I would ask for his involvement, build a program,
and get moving. You are late to the game. Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marty Dougherty
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:34 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power
cards.
Give me a break. I just joined WISPA in the past 60 days with intentions
of HELPING THE INDUSTRY. In the 60 days I have been on this list I have
seen all kinds of BS- Political grandstanding, rudeness and generally
unprofessional behavior. The most recent discussions about operating
illegally have been just as disturbing.
I want to know if WISPA intends to "step up" to the plate and take a
position against all of this INCLUDING the open and seemingly arrogant
flaunting of the rules that have been put in place by the FCC.
If you had the authority to grant new unlicensed spectrum to the WISP
represented on this list would you feel confident they will follow the
rules?
Don't you think the licensed camps are going to eat this up?
MY 2 cents- we are in for the battle of our lives with regards to
spectrum and we are LOOSING. In fact, if not for the muni crowd, we
would have little hope of getting any of the TV/whitespace. Someone else
mentioned this was similar to the CB radio story...
Marty
__________________________________________
Marty Dougherty
CEO
Roadstar Internet Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
703-623-4542 (Cell)
703-554-6620 (office)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mac Dearman
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:29 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power
cards.
Oh my lord Marty!
I think you are trying to get Patrick back in high gear on his soap
box!!
:-)
SHAME SHAME!!
Mac Dearman
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marty Dougherty
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:15 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: SPAM ? RE: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Since we have been on the subject- do these all qualify as 'certified"
FCC systems? I have often wondered how it's possible to build this all
yourself and stay legal...
Marty
__________________________________________
Marty Dougherty
CEO
Roadstar Internet Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
703-623-4542 (Cell)
703-554-6620 (office)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:49 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Understanding STAROS with High Power cards.
Our driver sets the output power using an electronics "volume control"
that is in the Atheros power out section. All drivers set the power
using that control. The precise setting is in tables provided by
Atheros for the various air rates and as you note it goes down as the
rate goes up. This is to keep the amplifier from being over driven by
the extra carriers that happen as a result of higher rates.
The high power cards that we have tested all have a power amplifier
after the Atheros power measurement sections, so the power setting
that the driver applies is further added to by the extra amplifier.
We have no knowledge about the specs of that extra amplifer except
that it supplies from 6 to 8 dB more power.
Lonnie
On 2/7/07, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can someone tell me how STAROS works in regards to setting power
levels to
cards that adapative modulate.
Specifically related to Cards with on board AMPs. To be more clear....
A SR2 may be speced at 26db at 1-24 mbps, but 24db at 36mbps, and 22db
at
48-56mb.
My unconfirmed understanding is, that the SR2 adds about 8db via an
onboard
external amp beyond what the card is actually set to.
So if the card is set to 16db, it will have an output power of 24db in
theory. However, its not that simple because the output power will
change
based on modulation.
Does STAROS drivers set the power as the constant power regardless of
what
modulation? Or does it set the TOP power? Does the power on the card
only
change if modulation drops and the power is set higher than power it
suppoed
to drop to? The radio card has no knowledge of what DB antenna is
connected
to it. And are the onboard AMPs a set output or variable output AMP?
The
point that I'm making is, how can we set the card to near MAX levels,
but
guarantee that they will never transmit above the allowed EIRP? If I
have
the conclusive answer to that question, then I can reduce the power to
the
lowest level needed for a good link, with headroom capabilty if
emergencies
occur, but more importantly, I can document what the top allowable
setting
should be for that specific configuration of a radio, so when an
emergencies
occurs, my novice staff does not break the rules inadvertently.
It gets more confusing with multiple manufacturer AMPs. Because we
need to
have knowledge of what type of AMP is added to the card. (variable or
not).
And also what input power level its expecting to minimize internal
distortion. I can give an example of a test I ran yesterday using a
SR2
(400mw) and a Teletronic 22db (approx 150mw) High Power card. I
thought the
chipsets were near the same. I got really weird results. The AP had
an SR2.
THe radios were hard set at 24mbps for testing. At the SU we tried
using
both a SR2 and Teletronics. The SR2 had 10db lower signal at the AP
than
SU, unexplained. The Teletronics had 5 db lower signal at the SU than
AP.
The SR2 had 15 db higher SU gain than the Teletronics SU, at MAX power
setting. Now I'm assuming that the SR2 was heavilly being overpowered
during
the short brief test, and we set it down to 16db power in STAROS. Why
did
this occured differently for the Teleronics Atheros? Is there onboard
AMP a
different type than the SR2? Or less filtering? Or worse sensitivity?
The
power levels also varied significantly based on what level cloaking
used, so
we were concerned on whether both cards, equaly cloaked. There was
some talk
in the past where some Atheros revs, only did 5Mhz transmits but still
listened to 20Mhz during receives.
(We possibly needed significant power because we were blasting through
some
trees and it was high noise environment, and we were using 30deg
antennas.
Before we get slammed for overpowering but within legal limits, Take
note,
that this is an experimental environment, to learn the product and the
performance of high power cards. Its likely we could have done the
link
without high powered cards, but then we would not have been able to
learn
anything. We are also proving the viabilty of whether it hurts to
have a
HighPower card by default, and if the card still performs optimally if
the
power is turned down. Or if the AMP in line causes significant
in-line
distortion that is disadvantageous for low power operation.).
I know there are two easy solutions...
1) Use a CM9 without an AMP, and avoid the problem.
2) Use a High quality OFDM Radio Like an Alvarion (Which we do often)
But for the sake of this thread, please ignore those two Options, as
the
purpose of the thread is to understand the specifications of STAROS
and
HighPowered Cards.
I think these kinds of questions are impairative for us to
conclusively have
the answers to, and not just have a "I think" thats how it works. The
question that I'm also posing is, can this gear be certifiable with
the
current StarOS feature set? Meaning, if there is no place to add the
DBi of
attached antenna, or the radio itself would not be able to auto-set
these
levels and left up to the engineer.
I'm going to Email Teletronics and Ubiquiti on the design specs of
their
cards, but I'm sure a lot of this depends on drivers as well.
Also as a disclaimer, we wanted to rule our power supplies and
Mainboard
hardware as causes. At the CPE, we used both a WAR2 boards and a
WRAP1E.
With the WAR board we tried using a 18V 1amp Power Supply, a 24v
unregulated
power supply, and a regulated 24V 1amp power supply. With the WRAP we
only
tried using the 18V, so not to blow it up (21volt Max spec). The only
thing
left that we have to do, is ro replace the CPE SR2 with a different
SR2 to
make sure it is function properly, to confirm that it is the RF
environment
causing the 10 db drop in signal in one directions. However, I'm
guestimating that changing the card will have no effect. Based on the
AP
receive levels that are with in a db or two from each other comparing
to the
Teletronic.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dawn DiPietro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:18 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Consultants making too much?
> Dennis,
>
> Is this this the study you are speaking of? Below are quotes from
the
> article that address some of your issues.
> There are a few corrections I would like to point out. This is a
County
> wide deployment not just downtown St. Louis
> also the consulting firm was paid $67,000 not $90,000 as you
suggested.
>
> I have also provided a link to the consulting firm that was hired
for this
> study.
> http://www.fusiva.com/aboutus.htm
>
> As quoted from the article;
>
> "The St. Louis Economic Development Collaborative, an arm of the
county's
> economic development council, is working with a communications
engineering
> firm to determine what would be needed - and how much it would cost
- to
> offer Wi-Fi access across the county."
>
> Also quoted from the same article;
>
> "The collaborative hired NetLabs of St. Louis to do the study,
paying the
> firm $67,500. Leezer said the next step of the process - after
determining
> what infrastructure is needed - would be to open the process to
Internet
> providers to see who could best do the job."
>
> Also quoted from the same article;
>
> "Leezer said it's too early to say how much any system would cost
the
> county. But he did say that it would likely be a public-private
> partnership in which the vendor would incur most, if not all, costs.
>
> "We are not looking at having taxpayers fund this," he said."
>
> Full article here;
>
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/stor
y/AB4ECCB73F716FFD86257272000E7875?OpenDocument
>
> Regards,
> Dawn DiPietro
>
> Dennis Burgess - 2K Wireless wrote:
>
>>Interesting thread, very good points on all fronts.
>>
>>I wanted to point out something, something that the guy who was
talking
>>about "consultants" etc. You are correct in that many people who
are
>>consultants don't know the real world implications. Us WISPs have
first
>>hand knowledge of what these things will do, what the bands,
hardware, etc
>>is capable of.
>>A recent "study" was commissioned in St. Louis. This was a
feasibility
>>study
>>that netted some "consultant" over $90,000 bucks from the way I read
it.
>>What was this for? To see if the city of St. Louis can put in a
wireless
>>network covering downtown. Hmmmm. My first thought on this
was....
>>
>>"So the consultant needs to conduct a study on IF you can do this?"
Does
>>he not know what he is doing? I can tell you I can do it, might take
me a
>>bit to do the necessary research, but hell for that price, I will do
the
>>research, finding bandwidth, contracts, and power/data agreements.
>>This is the kind of thing that us, using license exempt bands nee to
>>fight.
>>We need to make it public, that this is a misuse of taxpayer's
dollars.
>>We
>>need to ensure that this is shown to cut out the small business, in
favor
>>of
>>large, non-local companies doing the work.
>>A few other things that would help us WISPs out, someone in the FCC
ready
>>to
>>listen to our findings of non-complaint gear/overpowered radios,
someone
>>that can actually say, you get me these things, the proof to say,
and then
>>we will do something with it. Don't happen very often. If someone
calls
>>the FCC, how many times have you heard anything back on them? I
have
>>heard
>>interference stories, even from cell companies, (recent on the
lists).
>>
>>The story about the IT Person telling the WISP to use 4.9, is a
prime
>>example of something that the FCC should be ON THE BALL about. And
also
>>some clarification on band usages, power limits, etc, where several
>>questions and things are open to "interpretation", not closed down
enough
>>to
>>be "solid" in court or anywhere.
>>
>>
>>Just a few thoughts.
>>
>>Dennis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
>>Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:05 AM
>>To: WISPA General List
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
>>whitespaces
>>
>>George,
>>
>>Thats a good point. WISPs are maturing and as they grow they start
to
>>demand
>>
>>name brand type gear that will let them scale, which inadvertently
is
>>usually certified.
>>Thus larger providers using certified gear. With no disrespect
meant, I
>>could argue that some of WISP's straying to non-certified gear,
could be
>>more of a science project, or trials to test the viabilty of that
type
>>product line, and as those trials become successful, they likely
will
>>certify gear or buy versions that are certified.
>>
>>Tom DeReggi
>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 10:54 PM
>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] Widespread abuse of FCC rules, a list...was TV
>>whitespaces
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well this was an exiting day on the lists.
>>>
>>>I would find it hard to believe that the wisp industry is in worse
shape
>>>now than before concerning abuse.
>>>
>>>5 years ago when most were new and choices were far and few
between,
>>>there
>>>
>>
>>
>>>was a lot of "pringles" type wisps. Hey, they were the inovators.
>>>
>>>But it's hard to believe that with the advent of cheap gear from
many new
>>>players, I'd have ahard time believing that the vast majority of
wisp
>>>gear
>>>
>>
>>
>>>is an fcc certified system or kit type product, such as a star or
mt.
>>>
>>>I think we're building a mountain out of a mole hill in even
suggesting
>>>that this an issue that has to be delt with. The industry has
matured in
>>>a
>>>
>>
>>
>>>very positive way over the past few years.
>>>
>>>George
>>>
>>>This is NOT an official wispa stance or position, just my own.
>>>
>>>Patrick Leary wrote:
>>>
>>>>Here are few raw comments that might fray some nerves:
>>>>
>>>>1. The FCC is not a baby sitter. 2. Mature operators (and
industries as
>>>>a
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>whole) follow the rules as a
>>>>matter of course and expected cost of business.
>>>>3. You are not the public, you are commercial operators
financially
>>>>benefiting off the public's free spectrum and you off all users
should
>>>>thus be a responsible steward of that spectrum.
>>>>4. Those not following the rules have no ethical standing to
complain
>>>>about other illegal use, predatory competitors, lack of spectrum,
etc.
>>>>
>>>>As someone who has argued for WISP compliance for years, I've
certainly
>>>>been alarmed by what I see as a new level of non-compliance. WISPs
are
>>>>now commonly assuming the FCC's lack of enforcement is tantamount
to its
>>>>approval of abuse. The general attitude is now that there is but
one
>>>>rule: "Don't exceed the power limitations." Everything else has
become
>>>>fair game.
>>>>
>>>>Here is a list of things I see that lend anecdotal evidence, if
not
>>>>actual, that abuse is reaching new levels:
>>>> - many WISPs now believe it is no big deal to use 4.9 GHz to
carry some
>>>>commercial traffic (Hey, there's excess capacity so what's the big
deal,
>>>>right?...)
>>>>- use of STA's to commercially use spectrum is openly being
advocated
>>>>(this is partially responsible for an over 6 month wait in STA
filings)
>>>>- illegal vendors now operate in the clear with prominent U.S.
>>>>distribution (They must be legal if they have a store front and it
only
>>>>hurts other vendors anyway...)
>>>>- "build your own base station" type Google ads are rampant
>>>>
>>>>Call me an alarmist, but this accelerating trend is disturbing and
such
>>>>attitudes easily even have the potential to infect safety issues
(hey,
>>>>OSHA rules must not be that big a deal either).
>>>>
>>>>We must all appreciate that many violating the rules do so out of
>>>>ignorance, but that as an excuse. Groups like WISPA should take
firm
>>>>stands on subjects like this. You should strongly encourage
compliance,
>>>>lead the way and educate. You should fight the ignorance that
allows for
>>>>relativism and "creative interpretation" of the rules. You should
also
>>>>not cave to the hard luck excuses that "I'm a small guy and can't
afford
>>>>to follow the rules." (Your response to such should be to point to
>>>>funding sources/advice or otherwise tell them that there is a
minimum
>>>>cost to legally participate in this business and that following
FCC
>>>>rules is a minimum expectation as responsible stewards of the
public's
>>>>free spectrum.) And finally, WISPs should not treat knowingly
illegal
>>>>operators as equals because in fact they are liabilities to you
and the
>>>>industry at large.
>>>>
>>>>And yes, of course I have skin in the game but that in no way
alters
>>>>anything here or devalues my comments. If anything, as a legal
vendor
>>>>with a long professional reputation of compliance and scores of
legal
>>>>operator partners, and as an individual who has been beating this
drum
>>>>for 7 years, it should only increase the weight of my comments.
>>>>
>>>>Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>>Patrick Leary
>>>>AVP WISP Markets
>>>>Alvarion, Inc.
>>>>o: 650.314.2628
>>>>c: 760.580.0080
>>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>>Behalf Of Dawn DiPietro
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:26 AM
>>>>To: WISPA General List
>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
>>>>
>>>>All,
>>>>
>>>>Remember, it only takes a few bad apples to make the whole
industry look
>>>>
>>>>bad.
>>>>Think about that the next time anyone wants to complain about the
rules.
>>>>
>>>>Regards,
>>>>Dawn DiPietro
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Patrick Leary wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I hope it does go UL, but I have also heard some recent rumblings
that
>>>>>the FCC is concerned with what seems like a widespread
deterioration of
>>>>>WISPs following the rules. The phrase I recall is something along
the
>>>>>lines of "Damn it, these things are not guidelines."
>>>>>
>>>>>>From my view it is true. I see it in conversations that go
beyond the
>>>>>usual, "if you just stay within the power no one cares" to now
where
>>>>>people seem to via the STA process as a round-about tool to get
access
>>>>>to and use spectrum that does not commercially exist.
>>>>>
>>>>>Letting loose the same level of abuse in the TV bands is
something that
>>>>>will cause real problems for the FCC should broadcasters be
affected.
>>>>>The WISP industry must do a better job of policing itself and
>>>>>discouraging the slippery slope.
>>>>>
>>>>>Patrick Leary
>>>>>AVP WISP Markets
>>>>>Alvarion, Inc.
>>>>>o: 650.314.2628
>>>>>c: 760.580.0080
>>>>>Vonage: 650.641.1243
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>>>Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>>>>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 11:22 PM
>>>>>To: WISPA General List
>>>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] TV white spaces
>>>>>
>>>>>Steve,
>>>>>
>>>>>I appreciate your insight into the possibility that
license-exempt
>>>>>
>>>>white
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>space use might actually materialize. I very much hope that it
does.
>>>>>
>>>>>jack
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Steve Stroh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Consider...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>To the television broadcasters, WISPs using this spectrum in a
"we'll
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>stay out of the way of any television broadcasting activity"
manner
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the lesser of several other evils; television broadcasting has
been
>>>>>>steadily losing ground now; first 800 MHz was carved out of
Channels
>>>>>>70-83, and now the 700 MHz bands are being carved out of
Channels
>>>>>>52-69. The trend is clear, and while it's one thing for
powerful
>>>>>>terrestrial broadcasting to "share" spectrum with low-power
>>>>>>license-exempt usage, it's quite another for communications use
to do
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>the same. If the broadcasters play things right (and it appears
they
>>>>>>are "bending" towards white space license-exempt usage, but very
much
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>on THEIR terms...) the license-exempt usage of television white
space
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>may serve to "pollute" the remaining television broadcast
spectrum
>>>>>>sufficiently to prevent future reallocation (for at least
another
>>>>>>decade or so).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Intel, Microsoft, Cisco are some of the names being bandied
about as
>>>>>>advocates for license-exempt use of white space television
broadcast
>>>>>>spectrum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Jan 24, 2007, at Jan 24 09:21 AM, Jack Unger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Likelihood of unlicensed???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>My guess is that the established communications carriers and
the
>>>>>>>broadcasters will fight the concept of license-free use of this
>>>>>>>space.
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>I expect it will come down to who lobbies Congress most
effectively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>Newsletters Downloadable from
http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html
>>>>>>>Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220
www.ask-wi.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>---
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Steve Stroh
>>>>>>425-939-0076 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>>>Writing about BWIA again! - www.bwianews.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>--
>>>George Rogato
>>>
>>>Welcome to WISPA
>>>
>>>www.wispa.org
>>>
>>>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 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/
--
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/
--
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(190).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************
************
This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by
PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious code, vandals &
computer viruses(42).
************************************************************************
************
************************************************************************************
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/
