Hello John, Nope, I'm not a RF Engineer and not qualified to make formal comment on the petition. Does the affect of smaller antennas really need to be revisited? Isn't it safe to say smaller antennas result in wider patterns? Wider patterns result in less frequency reuse ability and the basis of the resistance to the petition?
The question was; should we as a group care about this? The initial response Jack and you made was misinterpreted as "we don't have time for it." I among others commented that we should care and why. Jack clarified his intent was not that he didn't care. I commented no harm no foul. You continue to beat a dead horse by suggesting a committee be formed? What am I missing? <grin> Best, Brad -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz Brad, Do you care to address my comments about F/D ratios and beam width? I think that is more pertinent in mitigating interference than dish size. If there is one qualified RF engineer in this group who can post a single message here that is thought out about the issues around 11 GHz dish size, F/D ratios, etc. then we can and should consider the possibility of addressing this as a genuine concern of WISPA. If all we have are people saying we should comment on this with no basis of RF fact as to why we should comment then I will stand by my original assertion that it is not an issue we will be addressing here. Are you an engineer Brad? Do you know the actual facts concerning this issue along with the outcomes of supporting or denying support to the petition? I guess we should address this issue since it looks like we are addressing the idea of addressing this over and over again. If this issue is that important to you, Brad, then why don't you Chair this effort yourself and convince us of what the issues are, what the RF facts are supporting the issues and why and how we should comment as WISPA. I am not trying to stop you from helping, quite the contrary. You obviously feel strongly about this issue so please send us what you find so we can make an informed decision on how best to proceed. Scriv Brad Belton wrote: >"... I am sure we could setup a committee to work on 11 GHz dish size >issues." > >That's beginning to sound like congress, the true epitome of efficiency. ><sigh> > >No, I do not believe a committee of engineers is required to study the issue >as the RF impact of smaller antennas is largely already known. The simple >question was what do we think about it and possibly should we as a group >comment on it. > >Best, > > >Brad > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of John Scrivner >Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:27 AM >To: WISPA General List >Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz > >The truth is we need qualified RF engineers to speak up if they are >here. It is my limited RF engineering knowledge which has always led me >to believe that F/D Ratio (Focal Length to Diameter Ratio) which >determines the beamwidth of the focused RF beam including the spread of >the spurious side lobes in microwave parabolic dish antenna systems. If >that is the case then the F/D ratio (not the diameter) should be the >root of the discussion. The truth is though that I am NOT an RF engineer >and therefore not truly qualified to make any genuine comment on the >issue until I hear more from engineers who know. If this group wants to >devote resources to this issue I am sure we could setup a committee to >work on 11 GHz dish size issues. I am just seeing this as a minor issue. >I am sorry to those out there who think this makes me short-sighted. >Scriv > > >Jack Unger wrote: > > > >>Brad, >> >>I see how my original comment could have been misinterpreted. There >>was an element of "I don't have time for this". Now that I've taken >>the time (that I didn't have) and (hopefully) asked the right >>questions, I think it's time for others to follow up if they feel it's >>an important issue. >> >>Personally, I'm not worried at this point about allowing smaller 11 >>GHz antennas. I don't think it's going to cause us any problems with >>frequency availability. I think 11 GHz frequencies will be available >>when they are needed. FiberTower's investors include American Tower, >>Crown Castle and SpectraSite. I can't believe that those companies >>would want to do anything to "screw up" either the availability of >>frequencies or the sale of "vertical real estate" on their tower >>properties. >> >>Have a good day, >> >>jack >> >> >> >>Brad Belton wrote: >> >> >> >>>Hello Jack, >>> >>>Good to see you're back on track with, IMO, a proper response to the >>>11GHz >>>question/concerns. >>> >>>Your initial comment came off as who cares and we don't have time for >>>this. >>>John simply dittoed your comments, so what was the group left to >>>believe? I >>>apologize if I misunderstood your intent. >>>Your questions/response below illustrate the type of post I would have >>>expected from you in the first place. >>> >>>Best, >>> >>> >>>Brad >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>Behalf Of Jack Unger >>>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:33 AM >>>To: WISPA General List >>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz >>> >>>Brad, >>> >>>I think you may be misquoting or misunderstanding me. No good can >>>come from that. Real questions need to be asked and need to be >>>correctly answered before we risk our reputation by filing comments >>>with the FCC that are technically incomplete or technically incorrect. >>> >>>Here's a repost of my original post. >>> >>>****************** Begin Original Post ********************************* >>> >>>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 doesn't have an engineering staff that can adequately >>>analyze the technical implications and prepare an informed technical >>>response to submit to the FCC. >>> >>>******************** End Original Post ********************************* >>> >>> >>>NOWHERE did I say that the licensed frequency bands are not important >>>to WISPS. Licensed backhauls are very important to WISPs. WISPs >>>SHOULD use licensed backhauls wherever interference levels are high, >>>where reliability is crucial, where throughput needs are high, and/or >>>where full duplex links are needed. >>> >>>NOWHERE did I say that the focus of the group should be limited to >>>unlicensed frequencies only. >>> >>>TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR, I will restate each original paragraph and I >>>will list the questions that each paragraph is implicitly asking. >>> >>> >>> >>> >*************************************************************************** * > > > >>>*** >>> >>>PARAGRAPH 1 - "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". In other words, we need to know the minimum dish >>>size now and we need to know what dish sizes FiberTower is proposing >>>before we can begin to understand if there is any affect on us and >>>before we can formulate our position. >>> >>>QUESTION: SO WHAT ARE THOSE DISH SIZES NOW, BEFORE A RULES CHANGE AND >>>AFTER THE PROPOSED RULES CHANGE? >>> >>>QUESTION: WHAT'S THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, ON US IF THE FCC ALLOWS >>>SMALLER DISH SIZES TO BE USED? >>> >>>QUESTION: ONCE WE UNDERSTAND THE TRUE IMPACT, IF ANY, WHAT POSITION >>>SHOULD WE TAKE BEFORE THE FCC? >>> >>> >>> >>> >*************************************************************************** * > > > >>>** >>> >>>PARAGRAPH 2 - "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". >>> >>>QUESTION: DOES A REDUCTION IN DISH SIZE REALLY AFFECT US? >>> >>>QUESTION: HOW DOES IT REALLY AFFECT US? ARE 11 GHz FREQUENCIES >>>CURRENTLY IN SHORT SUPPLY IN THE AREAS WHERE MOST WISPs OPERATE? >>> >>>QUESTION: HAS ANY WISP EVER BEEN DENIED A LICENSE FOR AN 11 GHz >>>FREQUENCY? IF SO, WHERE? HOW OFTEN HAS THIS HAPPENED? >>> >>>QUESTION: ARE THERE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES BEFORE THE FCC THAT WE NEED >>>TO DEVOTE OUR TIME AND ENERGY TO? WHAT ARE THOSE ISSUES? WHITE SPACE? >>>WISPS AS AN INFORMATION SERVICE? FCC's BROADBAND SERVICES SURVEY? >>>CALEA? OTHERS?? >>> >>> >>> >>> >*************************************************************************** * > > > >>>* >>> >>>PARAGRAPH 3 - "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". >>> >>>QUESTION - IF ALLOWING SMALLER DISH SIZES WAS GOING TO CREATE >>>INTERFERENCE PROBLEMS WOULDN'T THE COMPANIES THAT MAKE 11 GHz >>>EQUIPMENT BE AGAINST THE PROPOSED CHANGES BECAUSE THAT WOULD RESULT >>>IN THEM SELLING FEWER LICENSED 11 GHz LINKS AND HAVING HIGHER >>>CUSTOMER SUPPORT COSTS? >>> >>> >>> >>> >*************************************************************************** > > >>>PARAGRAPH 4 - "Finally, WISPA doesn't have an engineering staff that >>>can adequately analyze the technical implications and prepare an >>>informed technical response to submit to the FCC". >>> >>>QUESTION - DO WE HAVE THE ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE TO REALLY KNOW WHAT >>>THE TRUE EFFECTS OF ALLOWING SMALLER DISH SIZES WILL BE? >>> >>>QUESTION - A SMALLER ANTENNA WILL HAVE LARGER SIDELOBES. IS THIS >>>REALLY AN ISSUE OR ARE 11 GHz ANTENNAS NORMALLY MOUNTED WITH A FEW >>>FEET OF VERTICAL SEPARATION ANYWAY SO THAT A MARGINAL INCREASE IN >>>SIDELOBES WILL REALLY HAVE NO IMPACT ON ANYONE ELSE ANYWAY? >>> >>>QUESTION - SHOULD THE FCC GIVE ANY WEIGHT OR CREDIBILITY TO OUR >>>OPINIONS AND OUR GUESSES OR SHOULD THEY ONLY GIVE WEIGHT TO REAL >>>ENGINEERING ANALYSIS? >>> >>>QUESTION - WHO IN WISPA IS AN ENGINEER AND HAS ACTUALLY DESIGNED, >>>ENGINEERED, AND DEPLOYED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF 11 GHz LINKS? SURELY >>>SOMEONE HAS... WHO IS THAT PERSON? WILL THEY STEP UP AND DO SOME REAL >>>ENGINEERING ANALYSIS FOR US ON THIS ISSUE? >>> >>>QUESTION: WILL THAT ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SHOW THAT THERE IS ANY REAL >>>IMPACT TO OUR ABILITY TO OBTAIN AND USE LICENSED 11 GHz LINKS IF THE >>>FCC ALLOWS SMALLER ANTENNAS TO BE USED? >>> >>>QUESTION: WILL ALLOWING SMALLER ANTENNAS ACTUALLY BENEFIT US BECAUSE >>>OUR COSTS TO DEPLOY LICENSED LINKS WILL BE LOWER? (SMALLER ANTENNAS >>>COST LESS TO BUY AND SMALLER ANTENNAS COST LESS TO MOUNT ON TOWERS). >>> >>> >>> >>> >*************************************************************************** > > >>>That's it, Brad. Your help would be most appreciated to get real >>>answers. If I'm "off the mark" as you believed, that's OK with me as >>>long as it leads to an understanding of what the real issues are and >>>builds our credibility with the FCC, the manufacturers, and the >>>public at large. Real understanding benefits everybody. >>> >>>Best Regards, >>> jack >>> >>> >>> >>>Brad Belton wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Agreed. Just getting caught up on some of my email readings and >>>>strongly >>>>believe Jack and John are off the mark here. >>>>6GHz, 11GHz, 18GHz, 23GHz, 24GHz, 60GHz and 80-90GHz should all be >>>> >>>> >>>important >>> >>> >>> >>>>to us as a group. Any frequency that can be used by fixed wireless >>>>operators should be important to the group. >>>> >>>>For Jack and John to assume the focus as a group should be limited >>>>to UL >>>>frequencies is short sighted to say the least. Many operations, ours >>>>included, are already utilizing licensed spectrum were we can. >>>> >>>>Best, >>>> >>>> >>>>Brad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>>>Behalf Of Tom DeReggi >>>>Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:10 PM >>>>To: WISPA General List >>>>Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC requests comment on smaller dishes for 11 GHz >>>> >>>>Anything related to 11Ghz, should be WISPs concern. It is my belief >>>>that all serious unlicensed ISPs will at some point start to migrate to >>>> >>>> >>>Licensed >>> >>> >>> >>>>spectrums for backhauls. 11Ghz is one of the few upgrade options >>>>available >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>for WISP's that designed their existing backhaul to 5.8Ghz >>>>functionality. (meaning needing 4ft dish 11Ghz to reach equivellent >>>>distances of 5.8Ghz >>>> >>>> >>>2ft >>> >>> >>> >>>>dish links, in practicality). There really aren't very many Long >>>>range backhaul spectrum range options out there. Relaxing the rules >>>>could >>>> >>>> >>>result >>> >>> >>> >>>>in the inabilty for many WISPs to obtain 11Ghz licenses, because of >>>>unavailable spectrum, when they are ready to need it. A 2ft dish >>>> >>>> >>>beamwidth >>> >>> >>> >>>>(9-10 degrees) will cover the width of most of a small city at 10 >>>>miles. (Sorry I didn't do the Angle math yet). Compared to that of >>>>4 ft dish beamwidths. As much as I'd like a 2 ft Dish, how would >>>>that effect my future abilty to get a license? Thats an important >>>>question. Fibertower wants 2ft dishes today because they are ready >>>>to buy up the licenses >>>> >>>> >>>today. >>> >>> >>> >>>>Are the rest of the WISPs ready to buy the licenses today? How much >>>> >>>> >>>license >>> >>> >>> >>>>space is available still? I think some propogation data and current >>>>saturation data (number of links / potential for more links) would >>>>need to >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>be disclosed first to develop a relevant opinion. And how would the >>>>rules >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>effect cost? Currently 11Ghz is significantly more expensive to >>>>obtain because of dish size. If smaller more advanced dishes were >>>>allowed, a 2ft dish that had the characteristics of 3-4ft dishes, >>>>would those dishes be more expensive because of their unique better >>>>characterisitcs? The truth >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>is, every provider would chose 11Ghz over 18Ghz, if they could get away >>>> >>>> >>>with >>> >>> >>> >>>>a smaller dish. It would likely lead to less use of 18Ghz and 23 >>>>Ghz. Is 18Ghz getting saturated? If so it would be relevent to allow >>>>11Ghz to take >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>over the load. But I'd argue that 18Ghz should be near at capacity >>>>before >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>11Ghz be allowed to be more leanent in antenna size. >>>> >>>>The bigger fight for smaller antennas is to allow 6Ghz to be allowed to >>>> >>>> >>>use >>> >>> >>> >>>>4 ft dishes. 6ft dish requirement is insane. If 6Ghz was allowed to use >>>> >>>> >>>4ft >>> >>> >>> >>>>dished, it would then give another option for long range, (within a >>>>realistic antenna size for roof tops), then justifying the allowance >>>>for 11Ghz to have smaller antennas. The question is, why isn't >>>>Fibertower >>>> >>>> >>>just >>> >>> >>> >>>>using 18Ghz in their applications? Can they prove that 18Ghz is to >>>> >>>> >>>limiting >>> >>> >>> >>>>or unavailable for them? >>>> >>>>Tom DeReggi >>>>RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >>>>IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>John Scrivner wrote: >>>> >>>>Thank you Jack. You said it better than I could have. >>>>:-) >>>>Scriv >>>> >>>> >>>>Jack Unger wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>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, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- 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/
