But if they become licensed you have to also protect the first adjacent channel for that licensed link. That would remove 3 channels from the available white space and to get that proposed licensed link they also have to protect the first adjacent channels of the incumbents. Remember when we talk white spaces it really means 3 channels for every high power WISP deployment or existing licensed user of the band. Protecting first adjacent channels really narrows the number of channels available.
When you also look at the power levels they are asking for with only 24 degree beam width antennas, they have the potential to pollute a lot of spectrum over HUGE geographic areas. Take too much of the spectrum away for WISP use and you won't have any manufacturers building equipment because the market potential will be too small. Go to the spectrum bridge web site and play around with their on line tool to investigate white spaces. If you find an area you think you would use for white spaces, click on the channel you want. If there are no contours overlapping the area you are PARTWAY there. You then need to add the upper and lower channels (first adjacent) to the map to see if any of those contours overlap the areas you want to serve. IF you still have clean area great. You would be able to deploy...but wait..you become a successful WISP in this area and then Sprint/FiberTower comes along and licenses any one of those three channels you had that were clear. Guess what...you have to turn off your system because they are licensed and you are not....great way to knock competitors out of business. TV stations don't just pop up like that but backhauls could. Brian From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:05 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote: Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight: I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best interests. Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket. Of course these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a CMRS licensee. If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, then of course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to suggest some numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space of) 10, and one out of every additional 2, so if there were 20 channels, 7 would be allowed for PtP and 13 for PtMP. Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural areas for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future. The ability of both new and incumbent wireless providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a robust wireless infrastructure that is too often lacking in rural areas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- 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/ -- 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/
