On a License application, one must state the modulation that they will use or state that they will use adaptive modulation. Legally one is supposed to configure their equipment for what was approved. And there are reasons for that, regarding the freq Coordination.
For example.... If in QAM 256, one must have a lower noise floor and a higher signal to acheive reliabilty. For example... a link might state to operate at -35 and as low as -64 in rain fade, and maintain a SNR of 30db, so no one else can generate over a -94 noise floor, or they would interfere. If in QPSK, one might say they can operate at a sensitivity as low as -90. and only need 10db of SNR. That would mean either that.... Others could deploy if they did not generate more than -100 noise floor, or that if the Primary link operated at -35, as low as -64 in rain fade and maintain SNR of 10db, that the someone else could deploy without causing interference if theey did not generate a noise floor over -75. Either way, there is a big difference between -75 and -100 and -94. What level can a new license holder broadcast at, if the specs of other license holders are not consistent? If a licensee was able to put there gear on any modulations, it would require others new licensees to plan for worst case, and not generate noise higher than -100, limiting them. Thus it would only be fair if the provider actually used Adaptive modulation. The question them come ups, if one states adaptive modulation, but then does not use it, what harm is there and who would know ? After all it could allow the provider to also lower there transmit in non-rain cases. If someone states 256QAM, and does Adaptive modulation anyway, isn't it just giving risk to the one that stated incorrectly? So yes, I support allowing flexibilty in setting adaptive modulation or not, after the fact. The original license holder should be able to maintain flexibilty. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: michael mulcay To: sc...@brevardwireless.com ; 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, January 07, 2011 7:54 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Adaptive modulation is the subject of an FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153. Can you lock the equipment in a non adaptive mode? Mike Wireless Strategies Inc 831-601-0086 From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Scott Carullo Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 2:46 PM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Comsearch has this to say on one of the sites in coordination, anyone know what it is supposed to mean? They are closed now, I'm not being patient sry :) Path Warnings Document FCC Rule Part(s) Description Result / Action N/A site1 Radio Equipped with Adaptive Modulation. Review Radio Parameters N/A site2 Radio Equipped with Adaptive Modulation. Review Radio Parameters 101.31 (b) (1) (ii) site1 - ASR may be required based on C/L Height. Verify/Change Antenna Height or File with FAA N/A site1 Failed Glide Slope or Height requirement. Verify/Change Antenna Height or File with FAA Thanks Scott Carullo Technical Operations 855-FLSPEED x102 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
