On 2/9/2011 9:49 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote: > The proper fix for this problem is a visit from the enforcement guys, and a > nasty fine for repeat offenders. <jau> Joint FAA/FCC Enforcement teams have been out for a long time but this is a VERY costly solution and likely not sustainable in this era of shrinking budgets. That's why it's better to solve this problem before enforcement becomes the option of (costly) last resort. WISPA has suggested to the FCC that they better PUBLICIZE enforcement actions and they are considering that. > After that, what would be so hard about using sensing and DFS (done right > this time) to cause systems near the radars to notch out the 110mhz of > spectrum while not bothering anyone else? <jau> This is much more difficult that it sounds. The wireless industry has been working for over a year (manufacturers, chip makers, etc.) to do this and has so far been unable to come up with an acceptable technical solution. The effort is on hold at the moment. > The radar systems are well known, should be an easy signal to detect. <jau> They are not so easy to detect. New radar waveforms come into use. Radars go on and off-line. Wireless systems can't sit around all day just listening; they have real world traffic to handle. Again, the best minds in the industry have so far failed to figure out an acceptable solution. > The radios already tend to send a LOT of data back and forth, radio name, > signal levels, speed, language, channel used etc. etc. etc. Certainly any > radio that turns on could sense for 30 seconds, if it detects a TDWR signal > at a certain threshold, then report than back to the AP and the AP could > then lock out the needed channels for that particular location. <jau> You are more than welcome to volunteer to join the wireless "Industry Group" engineering team that has been addressing this issue for the last year. I'll be happy to introduce you to the team leader so you can sign up to contribute your engineering advice. > This should be able to be done via a firmware upgrade to any legacy or new > hardware out there. <jau> Well, the manufacturers are not stepping up to develop new firmware. This is one of the frustrations that the FCC feels. > Cheap, relatively easy, fixes the problem and does NOT take away 110mhz of > newly acquired spectrum from the rest of the country. <jau>I would welcome your help to reach out to and motivate the manufacturers to do this. Let me know when you are ready to start your outreach program. > A quick note on PR. The operator(s) there has run foot loose and fancy free > with the rules for as long as I can remember. Perhaps it's time to fine > them at a high enough level that it puts them out of business? Kind of a 3 > strikes your out thing. <jau> Yep. Sounds right.
jack > marlon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jack Unger"<jun...@ask-wi.com> > To:<memb...@wispa.org>; "WISPA General List"<wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 1:47 PM > Subject: [WISPA Members] Your input on 5 GHz rules changes needed > > > > In spite of the noteworthy efforts on the part of many WISP operators and in > spite of a temporary decrease in the levels of TDWR interference reported to > us > by the FCC, the TDWR interference situation has unfortunately deteriorated. > The > FCC now reports that some locations (New York, Chicago, Denver and Dallas) > that > were recently “cleared” of interference are once again experiencing > significant > interference problems. The TDWR interference in San Juan Puerto Rico is so > bad > that the TDWR system had to be shut off by the FAA. This is not good news > because the FAA is pushing the FCC to solve these interference problems once > and > for all. > > Voluntary database registration has unfortunately not proven to be effective > enough. There are still some operators who apparently have not heard about > the > TDWR interference problem and some who have simply failed to bring and keep > their systems in compliance. On the supply-chain side, there are several > manufacturers and distributors who did take positive, affirmative and > responsible action to help address the problem however they were they in the > minority. Most manufacturers and distributors did not “step up to the plate” > with customer education or software upgrades. Because airline safety is a > very > important issue, it only takes a few “bad actors” to cause significant > problems > for everyone else. > > The FCC is under strong pressure to take steps to solve the interference > problem > for good. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology has started drafting > a > Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). We don’t know yet what new rules the > FCC > will propose. They could require that the 5570 to 5680 frequency range be > “notched out” for all new equipment. This would mean that we would lose the > use > of 110 MHz of spectrum. Another possibility is that TDWR database > registration > will be required of all WISPs instead the current voluntary registration for > WISPs located near TDWRs. A third possibility is that all new equipment > might > have to automatically log into a geo-location database (similar to the TV > White > Space database) and receive a list of allowable frequencies. Nearby TDWR > frequencies and a guard band around the TDWR frequency range would be > prohibited. > > The FCC OET has agreed to meet with us to listen to and discuss our > suggestions > about ways to address the problem and what new rules should be proposed in > the > NPRM. I’ve prepared a short online survey for WISPA Members to see what new > rules they prefer and what suggestions they have. Please take a few minutes > today to review this survey and give me your feedback before I publish this > survey to our Members. I expect that there will be a variety of opinions and > possibly additional solutions. WISPA’s policy will be guided by whatever the > majority of WISPA Members say they want. > > Here’s the link to the survey< http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/HPCC7BL> > > Most of us do not want new rules and regulations however the bottom line is > that > we need to save this spectrum. 110 MHz of 5 GHz spectrum is too valuable to > just > give up. We have to fight too hard to acquire spectrum; it wouldn’t be right > for > all of us to lose 110 MHz of spectrum because of the actions of a few > noncompliant operators. > > As always, thank-you for your help. > > Jack Unger > Chair - WISPA FCC Committee > 818-227-4220 > -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author (2003) - "Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks" Serving the WISP, Networking and Telecom Communities since 1993 www.ask-wi.com 818-227-4220 jun...@ask-wi.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/
