Marlon,
I think you misunderstood Brad's comment. Nowhere does he say not to use
a short licensed link.
I think his point is that using 11 GHz for a 100-ft link is
inappropriate. A higher frequency, like 23 GHz is the proper way to go
because lower frequencies go further than higher frequencies therefore
using a higher frequency for a short licensed link is more appropriate
because it would reduce the possibility of causing interference to
someone further away.
It's a simple concept.
Please give me a phone call when you have a few minutes today. I need to
talk with you.
Thanks,
jack
Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote:
I TOTALLY disagree with that.
On two fronts.
First, what's wrong with a short licensed link? If that's what I want
to use that's up to me. Maybe I want to put a link that requires 100%
uptime guarantee and has to be licensed but only has to cross the train
tracks. Ever try to push a cable across the tracks or freeway? It'll
make Jack's $30,000 link look cheap!
Second, how would use of smaller antennas screw anything up?
I've been blown offline from interference that came from 30 MILES away.
It was only an 11 mile link. They had 6' dishes an had the power
cranked all the way up. I think I figured it at a 60 dB fade margin.
And there was nothing in the rules that said they couldn't do that!
Luckily they turned the power wayyyyy down and my problem went away.
With an ATPC requirement that never would have happened.
Just because they mandate antenna sizes in no way means that it's the
only, or today, even the best way to maximize frequency reuse.
laters,
Marlon
(509) 982-2181
(408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services
42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since 1999!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.odessaoffice.com/wireless
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 6:08 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
I don't think you would select 11GHz to go 100'. That's the whole
point...let's hope FCC doesn't screw up 11GHz by allowing it's use for
short haul applications.
Best,
Brad
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:07 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
All due respect right back at ya! grin
Anyhow, to think that manufacturers all have our best interests at heart is
a bit naive I think. What's better for them? A 4' dish sale or a cheap
and
easy 2' or 1' dish?
I'm not willing to get into technical arguments about this issue. The fact
is, each link is different. Each tower is different. It should be left up
to the local operator to figure out what's best. ESPECIALLY in a licensed
band. If they get interference, they can fix it. If they cause
interference they have to fix it.
I just don't like the idea of micro managing the pro's in our industry.
Keep the interference issues dealt with but let folks use the latest and
greatest technologies available to them.
If I want to build a link across the train tracks, 100', there's NO reason
for a large dish. Small dishes with lower power radios will do the trick
nicely. And if we mandate atpc we can get away with 3 to 5 (or some other
such really small number) fade margins too. No need for the typical
microwave 30 dB fade margins.
The problem with trying to engineer everything is that the real world often
doesn't give a rats behind what the engineers say. I've spend my adult
life
(such as it is) finding ways to make what works on paper really work in the
field.
We need the paper, to be sure. But we also need the flexibility to do
what's expedient in the field.
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Marlon,
With all due respect... We need solid engineering arguements if we're
going to present an official WISPA position to the FCC. If we submit
comments based on faulty engineering then it will be obvious to the FCC
(the FCC has real engineers on staff) that we don't know what we're
talking about. We will lose our hard-earned credibility with the FCC.
What's the benefit of losing our credibility?
No one here needs to be reminded that we're here "to serve the interests
of the WISP community". We all know that. A few of us have been in this
industry since 1993. Some of us first offered WISP service in 1995. Some
of us having been unselfishly serving the needs of the WISP community
since 1995.
The "manufacturers" are the ones that we are going to be buying our
licensed 11 GHz equipment from. Why would "their" interest in 11 GHz dish
size be any different from "our" interest? Wouldn't it be in "their"
interest to make the best equipment to serve "us"? If allowing smaller
dishes on 11 GHz was "bad" and if it would lead to fewer licensed links
being deployable then wouldn't the equipment manufacturers oppose the
proposed changes?
Again, with all due respect... I really don't understand what you are
trying to say in your post. Can you please state your points more
clearly - for everyone's benefit?
By the way, thank you for all the energy and the effort that you have put
into improving the WISP community since 1999.
jack
Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
Jack,
With all due respect.... We don't need engineers to know what we'd like
the rules to be like! WISPA is here to serve the interests of the wisp
community. The manufacturers can look after themselves.
marlon
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz
Dylan,
It would be good to know the minimum required dish size now and the
changes that FiberTower is proposing before deciding what to do or say.
I'm not sure this dish-size issue would impact any WISPs so we may want
to ask ourselves if there are more important issues that we need to be
focusing on, given the limited time and resources that we have.
I think this is an issue that the licensed microwave vendors will
probably deal with adequately, without harming our interests. When we
decide to purchase a licensed 11 GHz link, we'd be buying it from them
anyway.
Finally, WISPA dosn't have an engineering staff that can adequately
analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical
responese to submit to the FCC.
jack
Dylan Oliver wrote:
I recall some past discussion bemoaning the large dish sizes required
for
licensed links .. I just found this in the latest "Rural Spectrum
Scanner"
from Bennett Law (http://www.bennetlaw.com/rss.php?vol=13&issue=12).
Should
WISPA endorse this? I'm not familiar with the details of 11 GHz
regulation.
*FCC Seeks Comment on the Use of Smaller Antennas in the 11 GHz Band*
The FCC has released a *Public Notice* announcing that it has
adopted a
*Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking* seeking comment on whether to permit the
installation of smaller antennas by Fixed Service (FS) operators in
the
10.7-11.7 GHz band. The FCC initiated the rulemaking pursuant to a
Petition
for Rulemaking filed by FiberTower, Inc., a wireless backhaul
provider,
proposing to change the technical parameters that would permit the use
of
smaller FS antennas with reduced mainbeam gain, increased beamwidth,
and
modified sidelobe suppression in the 11 GHz band. The FCC seeks
comment on
whether FiberTower, Inc.'s proposals would serve the public
interest by
facilitating the efficient use of the 11 GHz band while protecting
other
users in the band from interference due to the use of smaller
antennas.
The
pleading cycle has not yet been established.
Best,
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
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/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
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/
--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
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/
