Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Mike Hammett]

A single eNB will do most or all of their bands, depending on manufacturer of 
the eNB, deployment models, etc. 

Sprint deployed three different vendors of eNBs for their 800/1900 MHz bands, 
which are on the same eNB. Those eNBs can do two different (only one at a time 
due to spectrum availability) channels in 800 MHz and multiple simultaneous 
channels of various sizes and positions throughout the whole PCS band. They 
used two of the same, but swapped the third vendor for their 2.5 GHz eNBs. 
Those can do one, two or three (perhaps more) of 8T8R 2.5 GHz in many different 
channel configurations, but Sprint is using TDD 20 MHz channels with a 60/40 
split. 

I wouldn't be surprised if new eNBs some of the other carriers have been 
deploying to support WCS or other new to them bands support 3.5 and 5 GHz. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Adam Moffett"  
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 10:18:40 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble) 


Are we still talking about noise or about spectrum allocation? 


Requesting channels from the SAS will not be staus quo, that will be very 
different from how we operate today. 


Right now I'm having trouble with another operator's wimax system. It's an 
industrial automation system so they're using a 50/50 TDD ratio (incompatible 
with ours). Their consultant advised them that they could use small channel 
sizes to avoid interfering with us, but they're insistent on using 10mhz 
channels. For some of our base stations, the noise in the NN portion of the 
band is already as bad as you're saying.and I really have no recourse. 


These guys are happy getting kilobits of throughput some of the time, so the 
fact that we interfere with each other is not really important to them. I'd 
hope that Verizon or ATT has more incentive to figure something out. 


When you're saying they could fall back on another band, are you saying they'd 
build 3.65 in our area and then spend the money to swap eNB for a different 
band? We're in rural areas, so I'm hoping they won't build in our area at all 
because they'd rather build their 5G stuff in a dense urban area and use their 
lower frequencies out in the woods. 


I could be wrong. I don't know what runs through their heads. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: 7/22/2017 8:12:49 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble) 




Do you really think Verizon, AT, Sprint, T-Mobil, Comcast, and Charter 
actually care about keeping the spectrum quiet? The first 4 all have licensed 
spectrum to fall back on if the CBRS portion isn’t working. For the cell 
companies it’s a bonus if 3.65 works, but they are not going to be upset if 
their noise knocks your gear offline. And when you complain about the noise the 
test is going to be “is it louder than -80dB at 1.5m off the ground with no 
antenna gain”. Also - that spec is based on 10Mhz channels. At 20Mhz wide 
channels it’s -70dB. The spectrum is going to get loud. 


WinnForum is very much of the opinion that the SAS has complete command and 
control of the GAA spectrum. You only get spectrum under some definition of 
fair allocation that the SAS is going to decide. It’s not codified status quo - 
it’s mother may I - and the SAS isn’t going to tell you who is keeping you from 
getting a spectrum allocation as they consider it proprietary. 


Mark 







On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I'm not sure whether that rule matters. Everyone has the same incentive to 
avoid interference with each other as they did before. Right now if we 
interfere with each other there's no recourse. Sounds like that'll still be the 
case. Codified status quo. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Mark Radabaugh" < m...@amplex.net > 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: 7/21/2017 4:49:37 PM 
Subject: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble) 







I urge ALL of you using 3.65 gear to pay very close attention to what the 
definition of power level at the edge of a SAS is - it is a whole lot louder 
than many of you are thinking about. The actual document is here: 


https://www.fcc.gov/document/35-ghz-order-recon-and-2nd-ro 


Pay very close attention to this, and the examples in the appendix. 



(d) Received Signal Strength Limits : 
(1) For both Priority Access and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must be managed 
such that the aggregate received signal strength for all locations within the 
PAL Protection Area of any co-channel PAL, shall not exceed an average (RMS) 
power level of -80 dBm in any direction when integrated over a 10 megahertz 
reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna placed at a height of 1.5 
meters above ground level, unless the affected PAL licensees agree to an 

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Adam Moffett]

Are we still talking about noise or about spectrum allocation?

Requesting channels from the SAS will not be staus quo, that will be 
very different from how we operate today.


Right now I'm having trouble with another operator's wimax system.  It's 
an industrial automation system so they're using a 50/50 TDD ratio 
(incompatible with ours).  Their consultant advised them that they could 
use small channel sizes to avoid interfering with us, but they're 
insistent on using 10mhz channels.  For some of our base stations, the 
noise in the NN portion of the band is already as bad as you're 
saying.and I really have no recourse.


These guys are happy getting kilobits of throughput some of the time, so 
the fact that we interfere with each other is not really important to 
them.  I'd hope that Verizon or ATT has more incentive to figure 
something out.


When you're saying they could fall back on another band, are you saying 
they'd build 3.65 in our area and then spend the money to swap eNB for a 
different band?  We're in rural areas, so I'm hoping they won't build in 
our area at all because they'd rather build their 5G stuff in a dense 
urban area and use their lower frequencies out in the woods.


I could be wrong.  I don't know what runs through their heads.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 7/22/2017 8:12:49 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

Do you really think Verizon, AT, Sprint, T-Mobil, Comcast, and 
Charter actually care about keeping the spectrum quiet?  The first 4 
all have licensed spectrum to fall back on if the CBRS portion isn’t 
working.   For the cell companies it’s a bonus if 3.65 works, but they 
are not going to be upset if their noise knocks your gear offline.   
And when you complain about the noise the test is going to be “is it 
louder than -80dB at 1.5m off the ground with no antenna gain”.   Also 
- that spec is based on 10Mhz channels.  At 20Mhz wide channels it’s 
-70dB.  The spectrum is going to get loud.


WinnForum is very much of the opinion that the SAS has complete command 
and control of the GAA spectrum.   You only get spectrum under some 
definition of fair allocation that the SAS is going to decide.   It’s 
not codified status quo - it’s mother may I - and the SAS isn’t going 
to tell you who is keeping you from getting a spectrum allocation as 
they consider it proprietary.


Mark

On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:


I'm not sure whether that rule matters.  Everyone has the same 
incentive to avoid interference with each other as they did before.  
Right now if we interfere with each other there's no recourse.  Sounds 
like that'll still be the case.  Codified status quo.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 7/21/2017 4:49:37 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)



I urge ALL of you using 3.65 gear to pay very close attention to what 
the definition of power level at the edge of a SAS is - it is a whole 
lot louder than many of you are thinking about. The actual 
document is here:


https://www.fcc.gov/document/35-ghz-order-recon-and-2nd-ro

Pay very close attention to this, and the examples in the appendix.

(d) Received Signal Strength Limits:

(1) For both Priority Access and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must 
be managed such that the aggregate received signal strength for all 
locations within the PAL Protection Area of any co-channel PAL, shall 
not exceed an average (RMS) power level of -80 dBm in any direction 
when integrated over a 10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with the 
measurement antenna placed at a height of 1.5 meters above ground 
level, unless the affected PAL licensees agree to an alternative 
limit and communicate that to the SAS.


The standard is -80dBM/10Mhz approximately 5’ off the ground measured 
by a UNITY GAIN antenna.  This frequency is going to be LOUD.   If 
you are used to deploying with 20dBi gain antennas this means the 
interference signal can appear to you as if it was -60dB and still be 
perfectly legitimate.


At the same time your base stations at 200’ with 16dBi gain antennas 
that are looking toward a PAL boundary are likely to see -64dB of 
noise or much higher if the PAL is calculating the -80dB by taking 
into account terrain, while your base station at 200’ is has clear 
line of sight to the other transmitter.


I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and 
counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely 
low signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE 
customers at very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue 
to work well when the base station is faced with significant noise.


Mark

Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
fcc_ch...@wispa.org
419-261-5996

On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists 

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Mark Radabaugh]

Do you really think Verizon, AT, Sprint, T-Mobil, Comcast, and Charter 
actually care about keeping the spectrum quiet?  The first 4 all have licensed 
spectrum to fall back on if the CBRS portion isn’t working.   For the cell 
companies it’s a bonus if 3.65 works, but they are not going to be upset if 
their noise knocks your gear offline.   And when you complain about the noise 
the test is going to be “is it louder than -80dB at 1.5m off the ground with no 
antenna gain”.   Also - that spec is based on 10Mhz channels.  At 20Mhz wide 
channels it’s -70dB.  The spectrum is going to get loud. 

WinnForum is very much of the opinion that the SAS has complete command and 
control of the GAA spectrum.   You only get spectrum under some definition of 
fair allocation that the SAS is going to decide.   It’s not codified status quo 
- it’s mother may I - and the SAS isn’t going to tell you who is keeping you 
from getting a spectrum allocation as they consider it proprietary.

Mark

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 10:59 PM, Adam Moffett  wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure whether that rule matters.  Everyone has the same incentive to 
> avoid interference with each other as they did before.  Right now if we 
> interfere with each other there's no recourse.  Sounds like that'll still be 
> the case.  Codified status quo.
> 
> 
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mark Radabaugh" >
> To: af@afmug.com 
> Sent: 7/21/2017 4:49:37 PM
> Subject: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)
> 
>> 
>> I urge ALL of you using 3.65 gear to pay very close attention to what the 
>> definition of power level at the edge of a SAS is - it is a whole lot louder 
>> than many of you are thinking about. The actual document is here:  
>> 
>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/35-ghz-order-recon-and-2nd-ro 
>> 
>> 
>> Pay very close attention to this, and the examples in the appendix.
>> 
>> (d) Received Signal Strength Limits:
>> 
>> (1) For both Priority Access and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must be 
>> managed such that the aggregate received signal strength for all locations 
>> within the PAL Protection Area of any co-channel PAL, shall not exceed an 
>> average (RMS) power level of -80 dBm in any direction when integrated over a 
>> 10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna placed at a 
>> height of 1.5 meters above ground level, unless the affected PAL licensees 
>> agree to an alternative limit and communicate that to the SAS. 
>> 
>> The standard is -80dBM/10Mhz approximately 5’ off the ground measured by a 
>> UNITY GAIN antenna.  This frequency is going to be LOUD.   If you are used 
>> to deploying with 20dBi gain antennas this means the interference signal can 
>> appear to you as if it was -60dB and still be perfectly legitimate.
>> 
>> At the same time your base stations at 200’ with 16dBi gain antennas that 
>> are looking toward a PAL boundary are likely to see -64dB of noise or much 
>> higher if the PAL is calculating the -80dB by taking into account terrain, 
>> while your base station at 200’ is has clear line of sight to the other 
>> transmitter.
>> 
>> I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and 
>> counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low 
>> signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE customers at 
>> very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to work well when the 
>> base station is faced with significant noise.
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>> Mark Radabaugh
>> WISPA FCC Committee Chair
>> fcc_ch...@wispa.org 
>> 419-261-5996
>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> The way it's structured right now, the 50MHz we are using now, and the top 
>>> 30MHz of the CBRS band will all be GA.  The bottom 70MHz of CBRS is set 
>>> aside for PALs.  Currently they are to be auctioned off by census tract for 
>>> 5 years, with one renewal option.  That's what WISPA fought for, and that's 
>>> what we are trying to protect.
>>> 
>>> Jeff Broadwick
>>> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
>>> 312-205-2519 Office
>>> 574-220-7826 Cell
>>> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Mathew Howard >> > wrote:
>>> 
 My understanding is that GA availability would be dependant on what's 
 actually in use... so you would still be able to use it in an area where 
 someone holds a PAL, but hasn't actually deployed anything. Of course if 
 the entire 150mhz is auctioned off as PALs, there's always going to be the 
 possibility that the PAL holders are going to come along and turn on some 
 new towers in an area where you have a ton of GA stuff deployed, and the 

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Adam Moffett]

I'm not sure whether that rule matters.  Everyone has the same incentive 
to avoid interference with each other as they did before.  Right now if 
we interfere with each other there's no recourse.  Sounds like that'll 
still be the case.  Codified status quo.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mark Radabaugh" 
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 7/21/2017 4:49:37 PM
Subject: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)



I urge ALL of you using 3.65 gear to pay very close attention to what 
the definition of power level at the edge of a SAS is - it is a whole 
lot louder than many of you are thinking about. The actual document 
is here:


https://www.fcc.gov/document/35-ghz-order-recon-and-2nd-ro

Pay very close attention to this, and the examples in the appendix.

(d) Received Signal Strength Limits:

(1) For both Priority Access and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must be 
managed such that the aggregate received signal strength for all 
locations within the PAL Protection Area of any co-channel PAL, shall 
not exceed an average (RMS) power level of -80 dBm in any direction 
when integrated over a 10 megahertz reference bandwidth, with the 
measurement antenna placed at a height of 1.5 meters above ground 
level, unless the affected PAL licensees agree to an alternative limit 
and communicate that to the SAS.


The standard is -80dBM/10Mhz approximately 5’ off the ground measured 
by a UNITY GAIN antenna.  This frequency is going to be LOUD.   If you 
are used to deploying with 20dBi gain antennas this means the 
interference signal can appear to you as if it was -60dB and still be 
perfectly legitimate.


At the same time your base stations at 200’ with 16dBi gain antennas 
that are looking toward a PAL boundary are likely to see -64dB of noise 
or much higher if the PAL is calculating the -80dB by taking into 
account terrain, while your base station at 200’ is has clear line of 
sight to the other transmitter.


I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and 
counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low 
signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE 
customers at very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to 
work well when the base station is faced with significant noise.


Mark

Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
fcc_ch...@wispa.org
419-261-5996

On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  
wrote:


The way it's structured right now, the 50MHz we are using now, and the 
top 30MHz of the CBRS band will all be GA.  The bottom 70MHz of CBRS 
is set aside for PALs.  Currently they are to be auctioned off by 
census tract for 5 years, with one renewal option.  That's what WISPA 
fought for, and that's what we are trying to protect.


Jeff Broadwick
ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
312-205-2519 Office
574-220-7826 Cell
jbroadw...@converge-tech.com

On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Mathew Howard  
wrote:


My understanding is that GA availability would be dependant on what's 
actually in use... so you would still be able to use it in an area 
where someone holds a PAL, but hasn't actually deployed anything. Of 
course if the entire 150mhz is auctioned off as PALs, there's always 
going to be the possibility that the PAL holders are going to come 
along and turn on some new towers in an area where you have a ton of 
GA stuff deployed, and the your whole network is suddenly gone... 
with no realistic way to fix it.


But yeah, if the PALs are covering an entire PEA, none of us little 
guys are going to end up with any.


On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Adam Moffett  
wrote:

Review:
The previously adopted rules split the 150mhz of the 3.5ghz band 
into a general availability (GA) section and a 70mhz wide Priority 
Access License (PAL) section.  PAL licenses are to be auctioned per 
census tract, and have a 3 year license term.   At the end of 3 
years you can renew once, for a total of 6 years, (After that I 
believe they go back for another auction, but I don't recall).  The 
GA section is administered by an automated Spectrum Access System 
(SAS), and any frequencies in your census tract not used by a PAL 
are available for GA use.


CTIA proposal:
The CTIA suggests that the PAL license term be 10 years and that 
they should have an expectation of being able to renew them.  They 
also suggest that licenses be granted for a PEA rather than a census 
tract. PEA's are gigantic 
(https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-759A4.pdf 
).   
Their justification for the license term of 10 years is that mobile 
deployments may not see a return on investment in 3 years.   The 
justification for guaranteed renewal is that it will encourage 
investment in the band.  The justification for PEA's instead of 
census tracts it that it's easier for them.  For all three points 
they 

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Adair Winter]

this is exactly right. LTE only works as good as it works because of the
little bit of advantage you get from the LTE protocol/scheduler and because
3.65Ghz is generally a much quieter band. as soon as your introduce noise,
it all does start to break down.

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> It’s “magic” in that LTE is very good when interference is very low - as
> it often is when you have complete control of the frequency like a cell
> carrier does.   The noise floor at the CPE buried in trees isn’t likely to
> increase greatly as others move into CBRS, but the noise floor at the AP is
> likely to reach the point that you will never hear the return path from
> NLOS clients (or even LOS clients with poor signals).
>
> Mark
>
> > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> >
> > On 7/21/17 13:49, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> >> I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and
> counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low
> signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE customers
> at very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to work well when
> the base station is faced with significant noise.
> >
> >
> > Generally speaking, it seems like a lot of people came to believe that
> the 3.65 band was a magical "NLOS band".
> >
> > ~Seth
>
>


-- 

Adair Winter
VP, Network Operations / Co-Owner
Amarillo Wireless | 806.316.5071
C: 806.231.7180
http://www.amarillowireless.net

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Steve Jones]

I rode thatr magic pony for about ten minutes, then I put a ubnt by a 320
not on the same channel at all and watched the destruction

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Mark Radabaugh  wrote:

> It’s “magic” in that LTE is very good when interference is very low - as
> it often is when you have complete control of the frequency like a cell
> carrier does.   The noise floor at the CPE buried in trees isn’t likely to
> increase greatly as others move into CBRS, but the noise floor at the AP is
> likely to reach the point that you will never hear the return path from
> NLOS clients (or even LOS clients with poor signals).
>
> Mark
>
> > On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> >
> > On 7/21/17 13:49, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> >> I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and
> counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low
> signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE customers
> at very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to work well when
> the base station is faced with significant noise.
> >
> >
> > Generally speaking, it seems like a lot of people came to believe that
> the 3.65 band was a magical "NLOS band".
> >
> > ~Seth
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Mark Radabaugh]

It’s “magic” in that LTE is very good when interference is very low - as it 
often is when you have complete control of the frequency like a cell carrier 
does.   The noise floor at the CPE buried in trees isn’t likely to increase 
greatly as others move into CBRS, but the noise floor at the AP is likely to 
reach the point that you will never hear the return path from NLOS clients (or 
even LOS clients with poor signals).  

Mark

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:
> 
> On 7/21/17 13:49, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>> I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and 
>> counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low 
>> signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE customers at 
>> very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to work well when the 
>> base station is faced with significant noise.
> 
> 
> Generally speaking, it seems like a lot of people came to believe that the 
> 3.65 band was a magical "NLOS band".
> 
> ~Seth

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Eric Muehleisen]

It was before the noise came

On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Seth Mattinen  wrote:

> On 7/21/17 13:49, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
>
>>
>> I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and
>> counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low
>> signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE customers
>> at very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to work well when
>> the base station is faced with significant noise.
>>
>>
>
> Generally speaking, it seems like a lot of people came to believe that the
> 3.65 band was a magical "NLOS band".
>
> ~Seth
>

Re: [AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Seth Mattinen]

On 7/21/17 13:49, Mark Radabaugh wrote:


I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and 
counting on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low 
signal levels.   I routinely see posts of people installing LTE 
customers at very low signal levels.  This is not going to continue to 
work well when the base station is faced with significant noise.





Generally speaking, it seems like a lot of people came to believe that 
the 3.65 band was a magical "NLOS band".


~Seth

[AFMUG] Be careful with 3650 (was CBRS in trouble)

[Mark Radabaugh]

I urge ALL of you using 3.65 gear to pay very close attention to what the 
definition of power level at the edge of a SAS is - it is a whole lot louder 
than many of you are thinking about. The actual document is here:  

https://www.fcc.gov/document/35-ghz-order-recon-and-2nd-ro 


Pay very close attention to this, and the examples in the appendix.

(d) Received Signal Strength Limits:

(1) For both Priority Access and GAA users, CBSD transmissions must be managed 
such that the aggregate received signal strength for all locations within the 
PAL Protection Area of any co-channel PAL, shall not exceed an average (RMS) 
power level of -80 dBm in any direction when integrated over a 10 megahertz 
reference bandwidth, with the measurement antenna placed at a height of 1.5 
meters above ground level, unless the affected PAL licensees agree to an 
alternative limit and communicate that to the SAS. 

The standard is -80dBM/10Mhz approximately 5’ off the ground measured by a 
UNITY GAIN antenna.  This frequency is going to be LOUD.   If you are used to 
deploying with 20dBi gain antennas this means the interference signal can 
appear to you as if it was -60dB and still be perfectly legitimate.

At the same time your base stations at 200’ with 16dBi gain antennas that are 
looking toward a PAL boundary are likely to see -64dB of noise or much higher 
if the PAL is calculating the -80dB by taking into account terrain, while your 
base station at 200’ is has clear line of sight to the other transmitter.

I’m very concerned that many of you are installing NLOS services and counting 
on being able to continue to provide service use extremely low signal levels.   
I routinely see posts of people installing LTE customers at very low signal 
levels.  This is not going to continue to work well when the base station is 
faced with significant noise.

Mark

Mark Radabaugh
WISPA FCC Committee Chair
fcc_ch...@wispa.org
419-261-5996

> On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:38 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists  wrote:
> 
> The way it's structured right now, the 50MHz we are using now, and the top 
> 30MHz of the CBRS band will all be GA.  The bottom 70MHz of CBRS is set aside 
> for PALs.  Currently they are to be auctioned off by census tract for 5 
> years, with one renewal option.  That's what WISPA fought for, and that's 
> what we are trying to protect.
> 
> Jeff Broadwick
> ConVergence Technologies, Inc.
> 312-205-2519 Office
> 574-220-7826 Cell
> jbroadw...@converge-tech.com 
> 
> On Jul 21, 2017, at 3:26 PM, Mathew Howard  > wrote:
> 
>> My understanding is that GA availability would be dependant on what's 
>> actually in use... so you would still be able to use it in an area where 
>> someone holds a PAL, but hasn't actually deployed anything. Of course if the 
>> entire 150mhz is auctioned off as PALs, there's always going to be the 
>> possibility that the PAL holders are going to come along and turn on some 
>> new towers in an area where you have a ton of GA stuff deployed, and the 
>> your whole network is suddenly gone... with no realistic way to fix it.
>> 
>> But yeah, if the PALs are covering an entire PEA, none of us little guys are 
>> going to end up with any.
>> 
>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Adam Moffett > > wrote:
>> Review: 
>> The previously adopted rules split the 150mhz of the 3.5ghz band into a 
>> general availability (GA) section and a 70mhz wide Priority Access License 
>> (PAL) section.  PAL licenses are to be auctioned per census tract, and have 
>> a 3 year license term.   At the end of 3 years you can renew once, for a 
>> total of 6 years, (After that I believe they go back for another auction, 
>> but I don't recall).  The GA section is administered by an automated 
>> Spectrum Access System (SAS), and any frequencies in your census tract not 
>> used by a PAL are available for GA use.  
>> 
>> CTIA proposal:
>> The CTIA suggests that the PAL license term be 10 years and that they should 
>> have an expectation of being able to renew them.  They also suggest that 
>> licenses be granted for a PEA rather than a census tract. PEA's are gigantic 
>> (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-759A4.pdf 
>> ).   Their 
>> justification for the license term of 10 years is that mobile deployments 
>> may not see a return on investment in 3 years.   The justification for 
>> guaranteed renewal is that it will encourage investment in the band.  The 
>> justification for PEA's instead of census tracts it that it's easier for 
>> them.  For all three points they also point out that these changes would be 
>> more consistent with how current licensing works (for them).
>> 
>> T-Mobile proposal:
>> T-Mobile suggests