At 9/14/2010 02:11 PM, Jack Unger wrote: > FiberTower (and the mobile broadband industry) has been and still > is fighting hard to LICENSE 36-MHz wide chunks of TV White Space. > WISPA has been and is continuing to fight back hard against the > FiberTower Group proposal. If FiberTower is successful, will be > able to blow big holes through the TVWS spectrum that would have > been available for WISPs to use. This is a "fight to the death" for > TVWS. We are continuing waging to wage this fight as we speak and > we will continue fighting right up to (and if need be, beyond) the > 9/23 FCC Open Meeting.
Jack, reading their latest ex parte, it looked as if they were specifically targeting areas with many vacant channels, and asking to use only a subset of them for high-powered backhaul applications. Would this be detrimental to the WISP community? If it really were limited such that unlicensed or lightly-licensed (Part 90 nonexclusive) white space had priority in areas with very few channels, then I don't see the harm in their proposal. Indeed it could be useful for the WISP community too, if (and only if) non-exclusive, as it would allow us to build high-powered backhaul links too. A Part 101-type path licensing regime would also allow that. This might be a more practical compromise position, no? -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! 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/
