[WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can't figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won't connect. Same credentials and everything.. I get authentication failed - radius timeout Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I've had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 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/
Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153
Rick, Pleased to give you WSI's opinion and comments re WISPA's Reply Comments WT Docket 10-153. Section I. Reject FiberTower's Proposal Well stated and WSI is in full agreement. Section II. Shared Spectrum WSI agrees. Section III. Adaptive Modulation By agreeing with Verizon and Comsearch et al, who are proposing unnecessary regulation based on a false premise and an incorrect reading the rules, you are supporting regulation that would unnecessarily deny service or increase the cost of service. See slides 20 and 34 of the attached Power Point slides from WSI's December 8, 2010 ex parte meetings with the FCC. Section IV. Auxiliary Stations WSI agrees but we would have added the key items of smaller antenna size and lower costs. Section V. Smaller Antennas Agree on the need for smaller antennas but small (less than 4ft at 11GHz and 6ft at 6GHz) antennas for frequencies at and below 13GHz can only be used on short paths for good availability numbers. Also, if patterned after the 11GHz rules every path would block very large numbers of future paths. Therefore, WSI believes these short paths should be auxiliary paths where even at 6GHz the antennas can be any size that works (1ft, 2ft) and no future paths will be blocked by the auxiliary stations. WSI's Comments to the NPRM/NOI, Page 8, and Review of Part 101 Antenna Standards are given below: In Section 101.115 of the Rules the Commission wisely specifies the electrical requirements that must be met but not how the electrical requirements are to be met, thereby promoting innovation. As noted in this NOI, smaller antennas have several advantages for carriers and consumers; however, the advantages from the use of smaller antennas should not come at the expense of wasting spectrum, but should come from innovation. For example, this NPRM is proposing to allow the use of very small antennas on auxiliary stations (for example 1ft. antennas at 6GHz) without causing any interference to existing licensees or future applicants. Therefore, WSI strongly recommends that any revision to the antenna rules facilitate innovation as the means to promote more efficient and cost effective use of spectrum. Thank you for asking for our comments, I hope they are useful. Best, Mike From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Rick Harnish Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 12:00 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: Re: [WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153 Mike, Where to you fall in with WISPA's Reply Comments.http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7020921272. I would love to hear your honest opinions, criticisms or supportive statements. Respectfully, Rick Harnish Executive Director WISPA 260-307-4000 cell 866-317-2851 WISPA Office Skype: rick.harnish. rharn...@wispa.org From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of michael mulcay Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:11 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: [WISPA] FCC NPRM WT Docket 10-153 In my experience, significant growth opportunities occur in wireless when there is a regulatory change, a technology change, or both. The last major opportunity in backhaul and access occurred in the 1990's when, as stated in a previous post, Western Multiplex Corporation petitioned the FCC for a rule making and an immediate waiver of the rules pending a rule making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. When both were granted (with the 3 for 1 rule at 2.4GHz), Western Multiplex introduced the Lynx spread spectrum radio, a technology change in conventional backhaul and access. Western Multiplex grew rapidly and the regulatory and technology changes created the opportunities for entrepreneurs to start wireless internet service companies and the WISP industry was born. With the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket 10-153, to allow auxiliary stations and make it feasible for technologies used in Part 15 frequency bands to be used in Part 101 frequency bands below 13GHz, the scene is set for a dramatic decrease in the cost of provisioning Part 101 fixed service licensed backhaul and access, thereby presenting WISPs large and small with significant growth opportunities. I believe the questions for a WISP are: 1. Can I grow my business with the added ability to provide +100Mb licensed services at or near the cost of provisioning unlicensed service? I believe the answer is yes, as applications are requiring faster and faster speeds. 2. Are Part 101 frequencies below 13GHz available in my service area? I believe the answer is yes for most if not all WISPs. 3. Do I want to take control of my own destiny, that is, own exclusive-use spectrum so as not to be at the mercy of interference from others, as is the case when using unlicensed bands? I believe the answer is yes. 4. What do I have to lose or gain by filing an ex
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
Scriv, You were one of the few who immediately saw the potential benefits. Thanks for the help over the years. To answer your questions: 1. Wireless Strategies mission is to engineer, provision, lease and/or sell concurrently coordinated licensed microwave networks. 2. Concurrently coordinated spectrum will support FDD, TDD, FDD-TDMA or TDD-TDMA depending on the application. Therefore, all existing products and technologies that can support PTP, MPTP and PTMP applications can be used and WSI has no intellectual property interest in these products. In the 6GHz and 11GHz licensed bands there are many manufacturers that have FCC certified FDD equipment but only Exalt has FCC certified FDD and TDD equipment. For PTMP operation there are many product manufacturers with product in the unlicensed bands (Motorola, Proxim etc.) that I believe could simply be re-banded from the 5.8GHz band to the 5.9GHz to 6.4GHz band. So, the question that WISPs should ask their microwave equipment suppliers is: How soon after a ruling by the FCC to allow the use of auxiliary stations are they able to deliver equipment and what would be the price? 3. Regarding smart adaptive antennas, WSI deployed and operated a custom designed 6GHz smart adaptive antenna in Baltimore. OEM Comm., who recently joined WISPA, has a custom designed 11GHz adaptive antenna. However, we expect adaptive antennas to soon be available from several manufactures (with costs competitive with legacy CAT A antennas). Best, Mike -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of John Scrivner Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 2:57 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question I want to thank you gentlemen for taking the time here to debate these issues. I have been a proponent for concurrent coordination as proposed by Michael Mulcay for a few years now. Michael did an eloquent job of proposing these ideas before the WCAI around 2005 maybe? I was in the audience. The licensed players there did not really see anything novel about the opportunity. They blinked. Michael and I spent a great deal of time discussing many of the same concerns I have seen discussed here. I brought the concurrent coordination proposal before the WISPA FCC Committee at that time but saw much of the same lack of interest as was witnessed at the WCAI show where I had first heard about it directly from Michael. We blinked too. Now we see that we are finally starting to see some traction for concurrent coordination within WISPA. I feel that Jack Unger has done a good job of bringing this proposal before the committee and making sure the opportunity was clearly described and explained in a way that made sense to our members. Thank you for that Jack. You work hard for us and it is appreciated. I too see this as an all ships rise in higher waters type of proposal. WISPs are buying more and more licensed backhaul. Clearwire has stopped making their crazy 300 PCN requests in a day. The true opportunity here is for WISPs to take advantage of. It is one of the only ways we can sell a real metro-Ethernet style service with an SLA. We can be our own first customers too. No longer needing a dedicated backhaul to each individual rural tower would be a windfall in cost and logistics for WISPs who want to replace all their backhaul with something that is truly carrier-class. The only question I have left is who will be building gear that is legal to operate as a concurrently coordinated link radio once you get your RO in your favor? Will you, Michael Mulcay, be the sole beneficiary of licensing this technology? If yes then what are the terms by which existing manufacturers of licensed radios can buy a license of your intellectual property to include concurrently coordination into base stations and CPEs? If this detail has not been established then our support for you could easily turn into an incredible windfall for you and your company but may not really yield us anything of real value in the end. So Michael, I ask you, what is the status of the intellectual property license opportunity for concurrent coordination? Have any manufactuers bought a license or have agreed to buy a l;icense to use your IP for this purpose? How much of a percentage of the total price of the product would we expect to pay for your IP as part of a base station? For a customer CPE? John Scrivner On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:02 PM, michael mulcay m...@wirelessstrategies.net wrote: Fred, Useful discussion, lets continue. I am guessing that in those cases, you didn't begin a presentation by putting a pointed set of insults (the whole obstructionism bit) into the Record. Your slide set might have been entertaining at a WISPA conference, or as a political broadside aimed at outsiders whose views of the FCC you wish to lower. But as a presentation to be mainly read by the professional staffers at the FCC, who are
Re: [WISPA] 2.4 foliage propagation
I'd say you're asking for trouble. We had a mixed bag with 2.4 penetration. If it was really close to the tower we could make it work. Otherwise, signal was in and out. When it rains or worse, ices, it would be unusable. A lot will depend on the type and density of the foliage (eg what type of leaves, how many trees per acre, how tall, what angle you at to the tower) and a lot of other factors to determine real RF signal through the trees. I'd say look for an alternative tech or try to get the cpe above the trees. Cameron On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Mike Hammett wispawirel...@ics-il.netwrote: I know it sucks compared to lower frequencies. I know it typically has a high noise floor. I've never used it outdoor for real world experience. I'm looking at some small towns and other groups of houses with no more than 300 people or so (some much smaller). They are old, so they have adult trees. Is it reasonable to expect to be able to service these homes with 18 dBi at the CPE and 20 dB at the tower? -- - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.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/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
Is he actually authenticating from a radius server or is he just authenticating from the MAC access list? Andy Trimmell wrote: We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can’t figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won’t connect. Same credentials and everything…… I get “authentication failed – radius timeout” Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I’ve had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 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/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
Sounds like pppoe on your network? What pppoe concentrater are you using? On 1/19/11, Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com wrote: We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can't figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won't connect. Same credentials and everything.. I get authentication failed - radius timeout Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I've had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 -- Sent from my mobile device 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/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
It relays it to our IAS. Theres no mac access list for router only for the CPEs. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Pat O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505 Is he actually authenticating from a radius server or is he just authenticating from the MAC access list? Andy Trimmell wrote: We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can't figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won't connect. Same credentials and everything.. I get authentication failed - radius timeout Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I've had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 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/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
Correction. There's no mac address list. We authenticate through IAS. Run-on sentence for the win. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Andy Trimmell Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:52 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505 It relays it to our IAS. Theres no mac access list for router only for the CPEs. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Pat O'Connor Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:07 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505 Is he actually authenticating from a radius server or is he just authenticating from the MAC access list? Andy Trimmell wrote: We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can't figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won't connect. Same credentials and everything.. I get authentication failed - radius timeout Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I've had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 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/ 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/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
Why would it work with all the 700 customers and not for this customer with this router? Is it the handshake? He has 3 choices for authentication and he's tried all of them except for PAP because we don't allow PAP. PAP / CHAP / MSCHAP IAS responds with event log entry Reason-Code = 3 Reason = The Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) request was not properly formatted. -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Parr Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505 Sounds like pppoe on your network? What pppoe concentrater are you using? On 1/19/11, Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com wrote: We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can't figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won't connect. Same credentials and everything.. I get authentication failed - radius timeout Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I've had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 -- Sent from my mobile device 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/
Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505
Mikrotik concentrators -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Parr Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 11:24 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco ASA 5505 Sounds like pppoe on your network? What pppoe concentrater are you using? On 1/19/11, Andy Trimmell atrimm...@precisionds.com wrote: We have a non profit trying to use one of these routers for their connection. Previously they have a residential Netgear router that worked fine and still does. However, their IT guy can't figure out why their new ASA 5505 Cisco router won't connect. Same credentials and everything.. I get authentication failed - radius timeout Plug in the old Netgear $40 router and boom connects no problem. I've had him try MSCHAP and CHAP and both do the same thing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Andy Trimmell Network Administrator atrimm...@precisionds.com 317.831.3000 ext 211 -- Sent from my mobile device 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/
Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] NS5 issues?
Quick note... v5.3-beta5.7493 solved all our uptime reliability problems. Prior to that, we still had links with occasional disconnects. OSPF session would drop because the CPE stopped passing traffic for a short period. In our case it was a PTMP backbone link using TDMA and Station WDS, with one AP and two CPE, and only 1 CPE demonstrated the problem. Because of it, we were hesitant to use the Rockets on critical backbones. But Rockets have been working beautifully for us, since the above listed upgrade. As far as I was concerned, v5.3-beta5.7493 was good enough for release, I was pleased.. I'm assuming non-beta 5.3 firmware 7782 is as good or better :-) The only thing that is still on our radar as a concern, is that on one or two links, embedded bandwidth test show mismatched speeds in Bi-directional test. For example, down only is 25mb, up only is 25 mb, but with up and down test the down might be 15mb and the up 2mbps. This only occurs with some links. MOst of the links when tested with Bi-directional tests will have the up/down speeds real close for example 12mb down and 12 mb up for a link with 25mb of capacity. We are searching for the reason why some of the links, show disimlar updown speed in bi-directional tests. Same firmware used on all radios, and we have both Rockets and Nano, that show either condition. Its hard to understand why a single direction radio test tests 25mbps up but only deliver 2mb up when in a bi-directional test. Finally what we did was speed limit the radio in the fast direction, to reserve bandwdith for the other. We believe this must have something to do with noise, and protocol traits that allow the best operating direction to gain access to radio to request transmission quicker and more often than the other, thus consuming the bandwidth. Is anyone else noticing that? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Forbes Mercy forbes.me...@wabroadband.com To: Ubiquiti Users Group ubnt_us...@wispa.org; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [Ubnt_users] NS5 issues? If you haven't seen Ubiquiti has released the non-beta 5.3 firmware 7782 for it's M series equipment. http://www.ubnt.com/support/downloads Forbes 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/
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
Fred, Thanks for the data. Point proven. How many WISP in that list? None! From license quantity 300-7000, no WISPs. So who will Aux stations in PArt101 benefit? Only exception might be RADIO DYNAMICS CORPORATION or Comcsearch, that do licenses for third parties. But even then, a minority on the list. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Fred Goldstein To: WISPA General List Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Tom asked, A relevent question is... What percent of Pre-existing PArt-101 licenses are owned by who? For example, what percentage of PArt101 licenses are owned by Sprint or Fiber tower? Surely without those numbers disclosed, we really cant understand who these auxilary stations really would be helping. If our competitors own most of the PArt101 licenses, Icant agree that helping our competitors be more successful will make WISPs more sucessful. I'd want to see that private independant WISPs and WISP industry own a significantly large enough portion of the PArt101 band already. Can we get these specs? FCC microwave license data is public; you can download the whole database. I've done this a couple of times, most recently a bit more than a year ago. (Warning: It's pretty tricky to work with. It's relational, with a ton of little files, and they just distribute the text files, not the SQL that may generate the most interesting answers. But if you like hacking in Access, it can be fun to try.) From that data, not today's, here is the count of the top 100 licensee names. (L=licensee; CL=licensee contact) entity_name entity_type CountOfcall_sign Verizon Wireless CL 6956 FIBERTOWER CORPORATION CL 3930 New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC L 3450 HOLLAND KNIGHT LLPCL 3389 FiberTower Network Services Corp. L 3265 RADIO DYNAMICS CORPORATION CL 2988 Cingular Wireless LLC CL 2484 METROPOLITAN AREA NETWORKS, INC L 2460 ATT Mobility LLC CL 2270 Keller and Heckman LLP CL 1977 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD L 1480 ComsearchCL 1471 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CL 1461 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS III, LLCCL 1416 ATT CORP. CL 1355 Clearwire Spectrum Holdings III, LLCL 1185 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP L 1174 Teligent, Inc. CL 1108 Sensus CL 1090 T-Mobile License LLCL 1064 Consolidated Spectrum Services CL 1003 LOS ANGELES SMSA LIMITED PARTNERSHIPL 968 ATT CORP. L 895 Clearwire Corporation CL 798 TELECOM TRANSPORT MANAGEMENT, INC. L 797 McDERMOTT WILL EMERY LLP CL 789 Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC L 786 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS II LLC L 775 KATLINK LLC (debtor-in-possession) L 770 KATLINK LLC (debtor-in-possession) O 770 Telecom Transport Management, Inc. CL 752 Covington Burling LLP CL 745 CLEARWIRE SPECTRUM HOLDINGS II LLC CL 737 BNSF Railway Co.L 726 Dow, Lohnes Albertson, PLLC CL 723 BNSF Railway Co. CL 718 Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC L 679 Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC CL 677 McDERMOTT, WILL EMERY CL 648 ATT CORP L 615 T-Mobile License LLCCL 608 W. Stephen Cannon, Management Trustee L 599 W. Stephen Cannon, Management Trustee O 599 Dow Lohnes PLLC CL 599 Qwest Corporation L 586 Qwest CorporationCL 576 BACKLINK V, LLC CL 575 BACKLINK V, LLC L 575 ART Licensing Corp. L 571 Constantine Cannon CL 571 Alltel Communications, LLC L 552 WILKINSON BARKER KNAUER, LLPCL 550 TRILLION PARTNERS, INC. CL 538 Trillion Partners, Inc. L 529 BACKLINK IV, LLCL 511 BACKLINK IV, LLC CL 511 BACKLINK III, LLC L 508 BACKLINK III, LLC CL 508 BACKLINK II, LLCL 506 BACKLINK II, LLC CL 506 BACKLINK I, LLC L 505 BACKLINK I, LLC CL 505 CHEVRON USA INC L 495 CBS BROADCASTING INC. L 492 NBC TELEMUNDO LICENSE CO. L 490 Clearwire Spectrum Holdings II, LLC L 484 Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. L 467 Northrop Grumman Information Technology, Inc. CL 462 Sprint Nextel CorporationCL 453 GTECH CORPORATION L 452 Stratos Offshore Services Company CL 447 ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. CL 447 Alltel Communications, LLC CL 438 CAPSTAR TX LIMITED PARTNERSHIP L 428 Wiley Rein LLP CL 426 MCI WORLDCOM NETWORK SERVICES INC
Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question
So, why are you proposing that we do not challenge the big companies who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo? No one is suggesting that we dont challenge big companies with vested interests. I'm suggesting the opposite. I'm suggesting that we challenge big company spectrum hogs to give back spectrum, if they can use innovative techniques to free it. Nothing in WSI's proposal suggests measures that would result in Pre-existing Spectrum Holders (BIG COMPANIES) to free up spectrum for the industry. Incentives are needed allong with innovation, so big companies will choose innovation not only to help themselves, but to help the industry. Making efficient use of NEW sectrum allocation is only part of the battle. Part of the problem is also how to gain more efficient use of the spectrum already used to free up spectrum for new purposes and applicants. What dynamic would encourage a pre-existing license holder to re-use their own spectrum with Aux stations than apply for a new primary path. Some WISPs heavilly desire a way to obtain licensed last mile spectrum, without auction. But I think they are also being a bit short sighted. I think they may not realize that having licensed spectrum might not benefit them as much as they think, when they run out of high capacity PTP spectrum, and dont have enough PTP spectrum to backhaul their Auxilary stations and cell sites. Then they will be stuck buying transport and transit from the local Tier1 ISPs and Telcos which will charge inflated prices and control the WISP's profit margin anyways. And PTMP becomes less realisitic when we are competing with fiber speed trends. The fact is... WISPs need both adequate PTP and PTMP spectrum. One without the other is a flawed model. I'm not necessarilly against Auxilary stations, I'm just saying its might not be appropriate for all bands. And I'm also suggesting that maybe the dynamics of different geograpghic areas might be different on whether PTP or PTMP spectrum is most needed. We need to find more spectrum to complete 400mbps-800mbps links 10-20 miles long. How do we gain that? Aux station rules would likely incourage the use of smaller antennas on pre-existing backhauls, not keeping larger more directional antennas. Because those that already have PTP spectrum need more PTMP spectrum. And being less efficient (wider beam antennas) with their primary license backhauls will allow the Keyhole to be larger for PTMP Aux stations. At this point I recognize I'm getting a bit repetitive. So I'm gonna try to defer from posting. But the primary purpose of my posts was to point out that some looked at Aux stations as a all good - no disadvantage concept, but there are two valid sides to this topic, and its not all good. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: michael mulcay To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Friday, January 14, 2011 1:31 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 11Ghz Licensing Warning Question Fred, Tom DeReggi's comments were business-case based and constructive; basically exploring whether the Commission's NPRM on auxiliary stations would benefit the large operators or WISPs or both. In WSI's opinion the answer is both, but with WISPs getting the higher business growth percentage. Frankly, I do not see anything in your position that would benefit the WISP community. Further, I have nearly thirty years of experience working with the FCC, initially with the Xerox XTEN filing, and later, at Western Multiplex as VP of Business Development I wrote the request for a Rule Making and an Immediate Waiver of the Rules pending a Rule Making to allow unlimited EIRP in the 2.4GHz and 5.8GHz ISM bands. Both were granted (with the 1 for 3 rule at 2.4GHz) and we were able to take Western Multiplex from the Living Dead (profitable with no growth) to a Star Performer (rapid profitable growth), growing the company by 25%, 50% and 100% in three consecutive years. I believe that auxiliary stations can give WISPs the same type of growth opportunity. I believe your last paragraph summarizes your view, so I will address this paragraph. But Part 101 is all about using conventional means. Wrong -- Part 101Fixed Service rules are about the use of spectrum for Fixed Services, fortunately not about conventional means as this would preclude innovation. .(narrow beams, narrow bands) to squeeze in as many PtP users as possible via coordination, not auctions. There are two problems with the conventional approach: 1. Narrower and narrower beams mean larger and larger antennas with the related dramatic increases in CAPEX and OPEX, and even then they are still not perfect. 2. The FS market requirement is for higher and higher speeds requiring higher and higher bandwidths, not narrower and narrower bandwidths. It works pretty well.
