Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-24 Thread jp
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 04:04:38PM -0400, Fred Goldstein wrote:
> At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote:
>> Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:
>
> I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me 
> that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then 
> letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best 
> interests.  Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of 
> channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket.  Of course 
> these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a 
> CMRS licensee.

Not knocking Fred's thoughtfullness, just adding some input. I could support 
some 
minor 101 use maybe 2-3 channels, but not 7 channels and guard channels, and 
all the 
other things asked for. I have a need to shoot 20 miles over water without 
ducting 
and multipath common to 5ghz, but ptmp tvws should serve that fine. As proposed 
the 
fiber tower plan is the most wasteful idea proposed yet to solve a theoretical 
problem that in reality could be solved with a pair of ubnt 5ghz radios and 
dish 
antennass.

I seriously question the cell carrier motives for the ptp proposal. It might be 
part 
legitimate interest in having another choice for backhaul, but I think it's 
equally 
or more a red herring diversion being that it sounds a little fishy. 

As for the first part, the organization leading the ptp stands to gain income 
if it 
can provide some backhaul. The carriers are behind it because it might create 
additional competition (leverage to bargain with backwards telecom carriers) to 
remote cell towers (the areas of the country that have the least competition). 
That's the simple economic proposal everyone can understand and like.

Their argument for this makes no technical sense whatsoever. It's the least 
useful 
use of spectrum ever. They claim they want this so they can use cheap 
antennass. 
Cell carriers don't use cheap antennas. It's like seeing a hip hop mogul doing 
a 
music video riding around in a Chrysler K-car; you notice it and it makes even 
less 
sense than before. They claim they need the low frequencies to carry long 
distances, 
I think citing a 75 mile link in one FCC comment. What cell carrier goes 75 
miles 
between towers? They are trying to expand/enhance phone coverage, not replicate 
AT&T 
LongLines. If you have to exceed 20 miles in rural wooded areas your service is 
going to be pretty spotty to put things nicely. They then rationalized several 
new 
towers and several expensive hops to get the 75 miles. I've never seen a cell 
phone 
site that is 75 miles away from it's coverage area. They need cells or patterns 
of 
coverage, not pin a tack on a map of the woods of 
maine/berkshires/kentucky/wherever 
and build coverage there. Coverage expansion tens to involve networks of sites, 
new 
retailers, not just a pair of $50 UHF antennas, some cheap radios, and a spool 
of 
rg6. That's something a wisp or ham would do. Furthermore, being that it's on a 
cell 
tower, it will have line of sight to somewhere. Cell tower zoning regulations 
usually require towers to support multiple carriers (to prevent unncesary 
"blight" 
from tower proliferation) and the towers will be higher than needed. Can't get 
much 
better choice for backhaul towers than a cell tower these days. Many 
inexpensive 
options exist on the market today for cheap LOS backhaul as WISPs know.

I think they are trying to prevent a massive glut of spectrum being used on 
affordable and effective equipment from competing with their services on the 
spectrum they paid dearly for. It has the potential to work better for ptmp 
than 
what they have in rural areas and for building penetration. They want to temper 
the 
potential for a wifi revolution is in a band that somewhat more advantageous 
that 
what they use. If they can prevent a third of it from being used for ptmp, they 
could sit on it and use it for a few minor backhaul needs for a few years. One 
of 
them will buy fibertower cheap because it's backhauls were receiving skip and 
it's 
$50 antennas were falling apart. Another will buy the company that bought 
fibertower. They will lobby and contribute to politicians for a couple years. 
Then 
they will ask to convert this underused but vital ptp spectrum their almost 
forgotten subsidiary has into a more useful exclusively licensed ptmp network 
worth 
gazillions of dollars. People of both parties will be sympathetics to the 
usefulness 
and timeliness of the idea (because tvws internet will already be common) and 
some 
sort of promise for network services to public safety or people's welfare will 
seal 
the deal from political division.

The wireless mic new rules are very generously fair to everyone involved. 2 
channels 
won't take a huge chunk out of the unlicensed and it's all low power stuff. I'd 
have 
thought one channel would be enough; you can fit a lot of audio into 6mhz, but 

Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Gino Villarini
2650 bad?

Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143

-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:28 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV
BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ
AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

  I've wondered that as well, but the proceeding has been ongoing for 
the better part of a decade, so it's quite possible that the 3 GHz 
section is the 2650 band that has already been open for years.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/23/2010 5:15 PM, Francois Menard wrote:
> Sorry guys,
>
> Where does the FCC document speak of additional spectrum in the 3GHz
band ???
>
> F.
>
> On 2010-09-23, at 3:43 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
>> Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:
>>
>>
>> Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set
aside TV channels in rural areas
>> for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of
both new and incumbent wireless
>> providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent
upon a robust wireless infrastructure
>> that is too often lacking in rural areas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


>> 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/
> --
> Francois D. Menard
> Project Manager
> Xit telecom inc.
> 1350 Royale #800
> Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4
> Canada
> Tel: +1 819 601-6633
> Fax: +1 819 374-0395
> fmen...@xittelecom.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/



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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Mike Hammett
  I've wondered that as well, but the proceeding has been ongoing for 
the better part of a decade, so it's quite possible that the 3 GHz 
section is the 2650 band that has already been open for years.

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/23/2010 5:15 PM, Francois Menard wrote:
> Sorry guys,
>
> Where does the FCC document speak of additional spectrum in the 3GHz band ???
>
> F.
>
> On 2010-09-23, at 3:43 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>
>> Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:
>>
>>
>> Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside 
>> TV channels in rural areas
>> for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of both 
>> new and incumbent wireless
>> providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a 
>> robust wireless infrastructure
>> that is too often lacking in rural areas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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/
> --
> Francois D. Menard
> Project Manager
> Xit telecom inc.
> 1350 Royale #800
> Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4
> Canada
> Tel: +1 819 601-6633
> Fax: +1 819 374-0395
> fmen...@xittelecom.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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Francois Menard
Sorry guys,

Where does the FCC document speak of additional spectrum in the 3GHz band ???

F.

On 2010-09-23, at 3:43 PM, Charles N Wyble wrote:

> Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:
> 
>  
> Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV 
> channels in rural areas 
> for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of both new 
> and incumbent wireless 
> providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a 
> robust wireless infrastructure 
> that is too often lacking in rural areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/

--
Francois D. Menard
Project Manager
Xit telecom inc.
1350 Royale #800
Trois-Rivieres, QC, G9A 4J4
Canada
Tel: +1 819 601-6633
Fax: +1 819 374-0395
fmen...@xittelecom.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/


Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Mike Hammett
 I believe the FCC has another proceeding for freeing up 750 MHz of 
white space in other bands for backhaul purposes.  I believe 6 and 13 GHz.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com



On 9/23/2010 3:04 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote:

At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote:

Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:


I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to 
me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given 
area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could 
be in our best interests.  Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, 
so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the 
ticket.  Of course these should be available to any qualified Part 101 
applicant, not just a CMRS licensee.


If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, 
then of course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to 
suggest some numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space 
of) 10, and one out of every additional 2, so if there were 20 
channels, 7 would be allowed for PtP and 13 for PtMP.




Finally, it is important
that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural
areas
for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of
both new and incumbent wireless
providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon
a robust wireless infrastructure
that is too often lacking in rural areas.






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/


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701





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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Brian Webster
But if they become licensed you have to also protect the first adjacent
channel for that licensed link. That would remove 3 channels from the
available white space and to get that proposed licensed link they also have
to protect the first adjacent channels of the incumbents. Remember when we
talk white spaces it really means 3 channels for every high power WISP
deployment or existing licensed user of the band. Protecting first adjacent
channels really narrows the number of channels available. 

 

When you also look at the power levels they are asking for with only 24
degree beam width antennas, they have the potential to pollute a lot of
spectrum over HUGE geographic areas. Take too much of the spectrum away for
WISP use and you won't have any manufacturers building equipment because the
market potential will be too small.

 

Go to the spectrum bridge web site and play around with their on line tool
to investigate white spaces. If you find an area you think you would use for
white spaces, click on the channel you want. If there are no contours
overlapping the area you are PARTWAY there. You then need to add the upper
and lower channels (first adjacent) to the map to see if any of those
contours overlap the areas you want to serve. IF you still have clean area
great. You would be able to deploy...but wait..you become a successful WISP
in this area and then Sprint/FiberTower comes along and licenses any one of
those three channels you had that were clear. Guess what...you have to turn
off your system because they are licensed and you are notgreat way to
knock competitors out of business. TV stations don't just pop up like that
but backhauls could.



Brian

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Fred Goldstein
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:05 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST
BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3
GHZ BAND

 

At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote:



Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:


I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to me that
if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given area, then letting
Part 101 point-to-point operations share them could be in our best
interests.  Backhaul for WISPs is often very expensive, so a couple of
channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be just the ticket.  Of course
these should be available to any qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a
CMRS licensee.

If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, then of
course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to suggest some
numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space of) 10, and one out
of every additional 2, so if there were 20 channels, 7 would be allowed for
PtP and 13 for PtMP.





Finally, it is important
that we address additional proposals to set aside TV channels in rural
areas 
for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of
both new and incumbent wireless 
providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon
a robust wireless infrastructure 
that is too often lacking in rural areas.
 
 






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/

 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com   
 ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ 
 +1 617 795 2701




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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Brian Webster
And the fact still remains that if these areas are so rural, there will also
be access to 6 GHz and other licensed microwave channels for the same exact
arguments they make for the licensed backhaul use of TVWS. 

 



Brian

 

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Charles N Wyble
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:44 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST
BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3
GHZ BAND

 

Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:




Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside
TV channels in rural areas 
for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of both
new and incumbent wireless 
providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a
robust wireless infrastructure 
that is too often lacking in rural areas.
 
 

 




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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Fred Goldstein

At 9/23/2010 03:43 PM, you wrote:

Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:


I know this is out of line with the WISPA consensus, but it seems to 
me that if there are more than 10 white space channels in a given 
area, then letting Part 101 point-to-point operations share them 
could be in our best interests.  Backhaul for WISPs is often very 
expensive, so a couple of channels (for FDD) of UHF backhaul could be 
just the ticket.  Of course these should be available to any 
qualified Part 101 applicant, not just a CMRS licensee.


If this were allowed to the extent that it displaced PtMP operation, 
then of course it would be bad, but it might make more sense to 
suggest some numbers, like 2 channels out of (a minimum white space 
of) 10, and one out of every additional 2, so if there were 20 
channels, 7 would be allowed for PtP and 13 for PtMP.



Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set 
aside TV channels in rural areas
for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of 
both new and incumbent wireless
providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent 
upon a robust wireless infrastructure

that is too often lacking in rural areas.






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/


 --
 Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
 ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
 +1 617 795 2701 


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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Charles N Wyble

 Hmm... looks like we need to keep up the good fight:

Finally, it is important that we address additional proposals to set aside TV 
channels in rural areas
for fixed licensed backhaul in the very near future.  The ability of both new 
and incumbent wireless
providers to provide 4G wireless services ubiquitously is dependent upon a 
robust wireless infrastructure
that is too often lacking in rural areas.







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] Just Released: UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS/ADDITIONAL SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3 GHZ BAND

2010-09-23 Thread Rick Harnish
2nd Memorandum and Order
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/index.do?document=301652

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




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/