Ah ha, that explains it: I'm using unlicensed as an experiment to try and generate revenue lol! My wife calls my business a "test"! ;)
On 3/3/07, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Let me add that experimental licenses can't be used to generate revenue; it's for testing purposes only. Commercial use is against the law. jack Tom DeReggi wrote: > Part-15, Michael Anderson, was selling a quick instruction guide for > obtaining 3650 temporary license, last year. > You might want to ask him. > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:45 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status? > > >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 13:30:38 -0500, Tom DeReggi wrote >> >>> 3650 is complicated. Last month's FCC visit stated that they are >>> getting close, and expect answers by Fall :-( Experimental licenses >>> are available, allthough, would likely result in removing gear in a >>> year. >> >> >> Can you point to any info on getting one? >> >>> >>> I'm hoping personally, that they rule to keep it 100% unlicensed >>> (actually "registered / Non-exclusive Free licensing", being almost >>> the same as unlicensed) , 100% in tact, but get rid of "contention >>> based". My personal belief is that the delay of 3650 will have >>> helped small WISPs. The reason is that Licensed 3650 in other >>> countries has allowed Manufacturers to start scaling their >>> production and doingtheir research. At the same time it kept Capitol >>> rich US telecom out of the WISP business, while WISPs could take the >>> time to get stronger and larger. Its possible that if they remove >>> "contention" based, in a year WISPs would have virgin spectrum with >>> LOW DOLLAR WiMax gear that they can afford by teh time the spectrum >>> is usable. >> >> >> If it's left in, we can use variants of 802.11 gear NOW, and for >> relatively >> cheap, as well. Heck, whether it's in or out, it appears to be workable. >> Frankly, I could use it now. I have no issues with distance and eirp >> for 2.4 >> or 5.8 as it stands. I mean, I can find ways of dealing with those >> limitations. I can't deal with the interference nearly as well. I >> found >> both UDC's and antennas that could be built to comply for 3650 NOW, >> and the >> idea of some interference free backhauls certainly sounds good. Being >> required to pull them in a year or two doesn't sound catastrophic to me. >> >> But Telecoms would still ahve the uncertainty of >> >>> Unlicensed, detering its use by large scale telecoms. The word is >>> that WiMax does not work in non-Licensed, but as we know, allthough >>> WiMax will undisputedly perform better in Licensed, it will perform >>> JUST AS GOOD as our current legacy TDD gear (such as Trango and >>> Motorola). However, if they insist on keeping Contention based, I >>> personally do not think a manaufacturer will ever make gear to use >>> the spectrum. It would be nice if 802.16H or equivellent succeeded >>> in stepping up to the table (contention based WiMax), but personally >>> I don;t think it will happen in our Small WISP lifetime (meaning >>> before WISPs sell to RollUps :-). Although WISPA's position was to >>> support Contention BAsed, and it was the right thing to do at the >>> time, I beleive that will ahve to be compromised in order to get use >>> of the spectrum. Just because I think so many manufacturers are >>> fighting it. Its the "near license Free" model that is essential >>> and can't be compromised. My view on this is because 5.8G >>> equivellent spectrum is what is so scarce, and none of the >>> allocations given to use allowed equivellent power, we need the 3650 >>> power, bad. >> >> >> I read the last R & O quite extensively and decided that there's no real >> great advantage to 3650. You can use 25 W ERP, but only if you use a >> 25 mhz >> wide channel. The narrower the channel, the lower the erp limits. >> Exactly >> how this plays out >> >> Thus, using narrower slices of the spectrum is not encouraged. >> >> One other apparently odd "deficiency" is that there's no ERP distinction >> between P2P and P2MP. You can use an omni at both ends of a P2P link >> without >> penalty, nor is there anything to encourage cleaner P2P use like the >> ISM 2.4 >> and 5.8 rules. >> >> Personally, I think the FCC is holding out, trying to >> >>> force manufacturers to innovate and embrace the ideas of "contention >>> based". They are waiting for a manufacturer to show them it CAN and >>> WILL be done, if they hold firm on the original rules. But if >>> Manufacturers don;t cooperate and make something that can pass the >>> requirement, teh FCC will effectively be squatting on the spectrum, >>> and will probably give up on their ideals, and get pressure to find >>> a way to make the spectrum usable. But that is just my personal >>> feelings, and in no way a representation or confirmation of what the >>> FCC feels. They are prety much at a no comment stage, lsitening to >>> all the arguements and watching how things evolve. >> >> >> Without rules to go by, I don't see ANYONE putting money into it. >> >> Any idea what kind of rules for what equipment is allowed? What kind of >> certifications mechanism? They hinted at "use any antenna" rules, >> which is >> fine, but if we're stuck with a part-15 type of "whole assembly" >> certification, we're going back to the "must buy only the big boy's >> solutions" which...may never exist, as you say. >> >> >> >>> >>> Tom DeReggi >>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "wispa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> >>> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 4:29 AM >>> Subject: [WISPA] 3650, ok, so what's current status? >>> >>> >I spent some time reading the latest R & O about the 3650 spectrum, >>> >which >>> >is >>> > dated back in 2005. >>> > >>> > http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-56A1.pdf >>> > >>> > I am, however, unable to understand what the present status is. Does >>> > anyone >>> > have that information? What's going on...or not going on? >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------- >>> > Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc >>> > Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains >>> > 541-969-8200 >>> > >>> > -- > 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/ >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------- >> Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc >> Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains >> 541-969-8200 >> >> -- >> 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 Newsletters Downloadable from http://ask-wi.com/newsletters.html 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/
