On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 04:04:38PM -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote: > 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.
Not knocking Fred's thoughtfullness, just adding some input. I could support some minor 101 use maybe 2-3 channels, but not 7 channels and guard channels, and all the other things asked for. I have a need to shoot 20 miles over water without ducting and multipath common to 5ghz, but ptmp tvws should serve that fine. As proposed the fiber tower plan is the most wasteful idea proposed yet to solve a theoretical problem that in reality could be solved with a pair of ubnt 5ghz radios and dish antennass. I seriously question the cell carrier motives for the ptp proposal. It might be part legitimate interest in having another choice for backhaul, but I think it's equally or more a red herring diversion being that it sounds a little fishy. As for the first part, the organization leading the ptp stands to gain income if it can provide some backhaul. The carriers are behind it because it might create additional competition (leverage to bargain with backwards telecom carriers) to remote cell towers (the areas of the country that have the least competition). That's the simple economic proposal everyone can understand and like. Their argument for this makes no technical sense whatsoever. It's the least useful use of spectrum ever. They claim they want this so they can use cheap antennass. Cell carriers don't use cheap antennas. It's like seeing a hip hop mogul doing a music video riding around in a Chrysler K-car; you notice it and it makes even less sense than before. They claim they need the low frequencies to carry long distances, I think citing a 75 mile link in one FCC comment. What cell carrier goes 75 miles between towers? They are trying to expand/enhance phone coverage, not replicate AT&T LongLines. If you have to exceed 20 miles in rural wooded areas your service is going to be pretty spotty to put things nicely. They then rationalized several new towers and several expensive hops to get the 75 miles. I've never seen a cell phone site that is 75 miles away from it's coverage area. They need cells or patterns of coverage, not pin a tack on a map of the woods of maine/berkshires/kentucky/wherever and build coverage there. Coverage expansion tens to involve networks of sites, new retailers, not just a pair of $50 UHF antennas, some cheap radios, and a spool of rg6. That's something a wisp or ham would do. Furthermore, being that it's on a cell tower, it will have line of sight to somewhere. Cell tower zoning regulations usually require towers to support multiple carriers (to prevent unncesary "blight" from tower proliferation) and the towers will be higher than needed. Can't get much better choice for backhaul towers than a cell tower these days. Many inexpensive options exist on the market today for cheap LOS backhaul as WISPs know. I think they are trying to prevent a massive glut of spectrum being used on affordable and effective equipment from competing with their services on the spectrum they paid dearly for. It has the potential to work better for ptmp than what they have in rural areas and for building penetration. They want to temper the potential for a wifi revolution is in a band that somewhat more advantageous that what they use. If they can prevent a third of it from being used for ptmp, they could sit on it and use it for a few minor backhaul needs for a few years. One of them will buy fibertower cheap because it's backhauls were receiving skip and it's $50 antennas were falling apart. Another will buy the company that bought fibertower. They will lobby and contribute to politicians for a couple years. Then they will ask to convert this underused but vital ptp spectrum their almost forgotten subsidiary has into a more useful exclusively licensed ptmp network worth gazillions of dollars. People of both parties will be sympathetics to the usefulness and timeliness of the idea (because tvws internet will already be common) and some sort of promise for network services to public safety or people's welfare will seal the deal from political division. The wireless mic new rules are very generously fair to everyone involved. 2 channels won't take a huge chunk out of the unlicensed and it's all low power stuff. I'd have thought one channel would be enough; you can fit a lot of audio into 6mhz, but I suppose if you want CD quality and have a zillion microphone systems in one stadium, it might be useful to have some elbow room for organizing things. Being that they are essentially pirate radios, I didn't expect them to have much traction. Perhaps it's the mix of celebrity support (few know better than the FCC how important entertainment is) and perhaps some unspoken law enforcement support for surveillance. > 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/ -- /* Jason Philbrook | Midcoast Internet Solutions - Wireless and DSL KB1IOJ | Broadband Internet Access, Dialup, and Hosting http://f64.nu/ | for Midcoast Maine http://www.midcoast.com/ */ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
