Exactly, We just have to be more creative on how we deploy and own our
sites. Property, Property and Property is going to allow wisps to
mitigate certain areas that cause pain from the bigger monsters.
Antenna tech has come along way in the last five years and that will
be our saving grace.
I like the use of a 180 deg 5G multi sector antenna that will give me 19
to 25db gain to hear our subscribers.
HP dualpole dishes with excellent F/B ratio
You have to think like the big monster does both technically and
politically.
On 03/03/2015 07:20 AM, Patrick Leary wrote:
Frankly, it's worse Caleb. The "rural broadband" allocation of 3.65
GHz is most definitively NOT WISP spectrum, but rather is spectrum
WISPs can use for a specific use. That in itself is rare, as the FCC
pretends it prefers "flexible use" rules that allow the market to
decide best use. In this specific case, the FCC determined the public
interest was best served by setting this spectrum aside for the
specific purpose of rural broadband. True (and I know it to be true
because I was there), their expectation was that WISPs would be the
ones to deploy most likely, but absolutely nothing prevents, say,
Verizon from rolling out a national 3.65 deployment should it want to
do so.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Caleb Knauer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
If I may put on my jerk hat for a second, what makes you think 5Ghz is
WISP spectrum? It's not, just like 900/2.4Ghz isn't. You can't own
unlicensed frequency, and as long as the gear is following P15 rules
then there's pretty much nothing that you can do. 900Mhz died that
way, and who knows what the future holds for 5Ghz. The only block you
could consider "WISP spectrum" is 3.65, and with so many using the
band that don't play by the rules with regards to registration etc I
think maybe the feds are going to have a hard time allocating more
this way.
Also, go ahead and point your stuff at big red/blue, and while you may
be within your legal rights it won't be a fun fight. Actually if they
are just one way 5Ghz for downstream then it won't do anything to them
anyway.
Or maybe I'm just tired and cranky.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Tim Reichhart <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> That means can we point our 5ghz backhaul stuff at there towers
and make
> there signal about worthless? If so that would teach cell phone
companies
> not to mess with WISP’s spectrum.
>
>
>
> From: Af [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Peter Kranz
> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:03 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [AFMUG] More LTE tradgedy of the commons on 5 GHz..
>
>
>
> If systems like this end up rolling out on cell sites across the
nation we
> are going to see some tough times getting clear channels. I’ve
seen several
> proposals now for tower based systems that use very large swaths
of 5Ghz as
> alternative LTE data paths to cell phones with multi-channel BW
designed to
> suck up every free piece of 5Ghz spectrum found.
>
>
>
>
http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/02/t-mobile-alcatel-wifi-and-4g-fight/
>
>
>
> Peter Kranz
> Founder/CEO - Unwired Ltd
> www.UnwiredLtd.com <http://www.UnwiredLtd.com>
> Desk: 510-868-1614 x100 <tel:510-868-1614%20x100>
> Mobile: 510-207-0000 <tel:510-207-0000>
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
--
Patrick Leary
Director BD, North America, Telrad
727.501.3735
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
[this address is only for AFMUG]
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [this is my
corporate address]
