Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Seems like an overly pompous response to an overtly obvious statement. No site we'll do is transmit only or receive only. All will do 2 way communications, though Brian's suggestions would have transmit only and receive only radios. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com On 10/14/2010 7:16 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum ReportOrder language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ -- 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Brian, I really like your idea for a full duplex system. Your example does not appear to have much foliage and has rather high density. I feel that TVWS should be used primarily for the low density with lots of foliage. High density areas like that could very easily be serviced with higher frequencies (5.2/5.8) Would you be willing to look at how effective this would be from a tower located at 39.184900 -120.963500? The tree height is on average 120ft. A mix of mostly Pine and some large Oak. By setting the land cover density to 500% in Radio Mobile, I am still not able to adequately reproduce the amount of path loss due to foliage when compared to most links I have deployed in 900mhz. Thanks, - Matt On 10/14/2010 06:16 PM, Brian Webster wrote: The request was made for the simple reason of being able to use the 40 mw devices in a split radio architecture. If anyone caught my posting about how far you can broadcast with 40 mw, it might make more sense. If you transmit on one end of a link using 40 mw radio you could use a high gain antenna on the other ends receiver to make up for the low power. Design a radio with a separate receiver from the transmitter and you can have a multipoint system that can operate in the first adjacent channels and still work for a WISP. The key concept is that your transmitter does not use the same antenna as your receiver keeping the power levels fully legal. The 40 mw devices in the first adjacent channels do not have any HAAT limits. They are referred to as mobile devices. There was a potential problem in the rules to make this work. There was one little statement that said any transmitter and/or receiver could not exceed the HAAT rules. It makes no sense for a receiver to have to abide by that since it cannot cause interference. The FCC apparently agreed. 40 mw transmit into a no gain antenna is legal, a 15 dbi receive antenna on the other end is legal to. Put one of each in all radio devices and we can operate in the first adjacent channels, PLUS you can transmit and receive on separate frequencies thus having 12 MHz to work with. We need to get out of the thought process of half duplex radios operating in a single channel using the same antenna. If you can use first adjacent channels you have a whole lot more capacity in each market than just the 4 watt EIRP non-adjacent channels. Split transmit and receive radios will also allow you to mix and match high and low power. Use high power for the downlink and have multiple remote receivers on the low power channels for the uplink. See the attached Google Earth file comparing the different channels and power levels (save it to your hard drive prior to opening in Google Earth). Remember these TV channels give you 15 to 20 db gain over current unlicensed bands due to the reduction in free space loss that fact in conjunction with a 15 dbi gain receive antenna gives you up to 35 db gain to a 40 mw signal over what one would expect say a 40 mw Wi-Fi radio to broadcast. The second issue they tried to address was the sites that exceed the 76 meter HAAT rules but would not exceed a total of 106 meters HAAT that you would in effect have if you build a 30 meter tower on such a site. They tried to get the erratum fixed to allow for any combination of site elevation and tower height so long as the total HAAT does not exceed the 106 meters. Fred do any of the sites you mention exceed the total HAAT of 106 meters? The FCC said that unless the broadcasters agree that the combination issues was not a big deal it would have to go out for public comment. The receiver issue was just a separate point that was talked about in the same meeting. Please take the time to re-read the FCC notice and use your RF expertise to think of how one can stay within the rules and design radio systems to take full advantage of the rules as they are written. I came up with these thoughts to hopefully get manufacturers to produce devices to take advantage of the new rules, not just repurpose existing unlicensed gear to operate on these new frequencies. That would be a total waste of this new frontier and very spectrum inefficient. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Fred Goldstein Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:28 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question. Quite frankly I have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good idea to treat me like a dunce. So I'll ask the question differently. Do I need to create a new petition or did you address the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue? I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT. So I
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Matt, What do you have your availability percentages set at in your network properties of Radio Mobile? For any tree class going above 180 or 200% tells me you have something set wrong in the RF tool somewhere else. The examples I posted are actually in fairly dense forested areas of upstate NY. The tree clutter was factored in to the model. Remember also that in these lower frequencies the tree loss factor drops considerably as the absorption rate gets lower in the lower frequencies. Thank You, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com www.Broadband-Mapping.com From: Matt Jenkins [mailto:m...@smarterbroadband.net] Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 12:49 PM To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.com; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday Brian, I really like your idea for a full duplex system. Your example does not appear to have much foliage and has rather high density. I feel that TVWS should be used primarily for the low density with lots of foliage. High density areas like that could very easily be serviced with higher frequencies (5.2/5.8) Would you be willing to look at how effective this would be from a tower located at 39.184900 -120.963500? The tree height is on average 120ft. A mix of mostly Pine and some large Oak. By setting the land cover density to 500% in Radio Mobile, I am still not able to adequately reproduce the amount of path loss due to foliage when compared to most links I have deployed in 900mhz. Thanks, - Matt On 10/14/2010 06:16 PM, Brian Webster wrote: The request was made for the simple reason of being able to use the 40 mw devices in a split radio architecture. If anyone caught my posting about how far you can broadcast with 40 mw, it might make more sense. If you transmit on one end of a link using 40 mw radio you could use a high gain antenna on the other ends receiver to make up for the low power. Design a radio with a separate receiver from the transmitter and you can have a multipoint system that can operate in the first adjacent channels and still work for a WISP. The key concept is that your transmitter does not use the same antenna as your receiver keeping the power levels fully legal. The 40 mw devices in the first adjacent channels do not have any HAAT limits. They are referred to as mobile devices. There was a potential problem in the rules to make this work. There was one little statement that said any transmitter and/or receiver could not exceed the HAAT rules. It makes no sense for a receiver to have to abide by that since it cannot cause interference. The FCC apparently agreed. 40 mw transmit into a no gain antenna is legal, a 15 dbi receive antenna on the other end is legal to. Put one of each in all radio devices and we can operate in the first adjacent channels, PLUS you can transmit and receive on separate frequencies thus having 12 MHz to work with. We need to get out of the thought process of half duplex radios operating in a single channel using the same antenna. If you can use first adjacent channels you have a whole lot more capacity in each market than just the 4 watt EIRP non-adjacent channels. Split transmit and receive radios will also allow you to mix and match high and low power. Use high power for the downlink and have multiple remote receivers on the low power channels for the uplink. See the attached Google Earth file comparing the different channels and power levels (save it to your hard drive prior to opening in Google Earth). Remember these TV channels give you 15 to 20 db gain over current unlicensed bands due to the reduction in free space loss that fact in conjunction with a 15 dbi gain receive antenna gives you up to 35 db gain to a 40 mw signal over what one would expect say a 40 mw Wi-Fi radio to broadcast. The second issue they tried to address was the sites that exceed the 76 meter HAAT rules but would not exceed a total of 106 meters HAAT that you would in effect have if you build a 30 meter tower on such a site. They tried to get the erratum fixed to allow for any combination of site elevation and tower height so long as the total HAAT does not exceed the 106 meters. Fred do any of the sites you mention exceed the total HAAT of 106 meters? The FCC said that unless the broadcasters agree that the combination issues was not a big deal it would have to go out for public comment. The receiver issue was just a separate point that was talked about in the same meeting. Please take the time to re-read the FCC notice and use your RF expertise to think of how one can stay within the rules and design radio systems to take full advantage of the rules as they are written. I came up with these thoughts to hopefully get manufacturers to produce devices to take advantage of the new rules, not just repurpose existing unlicensed gear to operate on these new frequencies. That would be a total waste of this new frontier and very spectrum inefficient. Thank You, Brian
[WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016058471 Respectfully, 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/
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ -- 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Maybe explain what it means to WISPs? On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- Fred Goldstein k1io 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ -- Fred Goldstein k1io 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question. Quite frankly I have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good idea to treat me like a dunce. So I'll ask the question differently. Do I need to create a new petition or did you address the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue? I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT. So I want WISPs to be able to put a radio there. I'm really confused at what you're trying to do. Do you really call subscriber units (I'm imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) receive only (I don't), or do you really only want receivers? Which of course don't fall under those rules anyway. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at that main tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able to better hear the handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the main tx site fine. Jason --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM Maybe explain what it means to WISPs? On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- Fred Goldstein k1io 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ -- Fred Goldstein k1io 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/ -Inline Attachment Follows- 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Hello Fred, Regarding snarky insults - a simple review of this email thread reveals that the only snarky insults are the ones that contributed. Please review WISPA's mailing list policies at http://www.wispa.org/?page_id=9. Regarding your strong RF and regulatory background I offer the following for your consideration. 1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not return either your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you become) a WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below). 2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working with WISPA's dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of work to keep abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file WISPA's FCC comments. Again, have a great day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question. Quite frankly I have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good idea to treat me like a dunce. So I'll ask the question differently. Do I need to create a new petition or did you address the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue? I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT. So I want WISPs to be able to put a radio there. I'm really confused at what you're trying to do. Do you really call subscriber units (I'm imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) receive only (I don't), or do you really only want receivers? Which of course don't fall under those rules anyway. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum ReportOrder language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Oops, typo corrected in 2nd line below (added the word you). On 10/14/2010 5:44 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Hello Fred, Regarding snarky insults - a simple review of this email thread reveals that the only snarky insults are the ones that you contributed. Please review WISPA's mailing list policies athttp://www.wispa.org/?page_id=9. Regarding your strong RF and regulatory background I offer the following for your consideration. 1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not return either your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you become) a WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below). 2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working with WISPA's dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of work to keep abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file WISPA's FCC comments. Again, have a great day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question. Quite frankly I have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good idea to treat me like a dunce. So I'll ask the question differently. Do I need to create a new petition or did you address the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue? I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT. So I want WISPs to be able to put a radio there. I'm really confused at what you're trying to do. Do you really call subscriber units (I'm imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) receive only (I don't), or do you really only want receivers? Which of course don't fall under those rules anyway. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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/
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
At 10/14/2010 08:35 PM, Jason Bailey wrote: In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at that main tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able to better hear the handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the main tx site fine. Jason That makes sense when power is highly asymmetrical, as with an HT. However, power limits on TVWS are all low -- 4 W ERP max for a fixed unit -- so there's little reason to do that. A wireless mic (personal/portable) system just might, if it has to cover a fairly large area, but that's not what WISPs need. And wireless mics (non-fixed devices) aren't subject to the HAAT limit; their receivers can be anywhere too. Channels up to 20 are only usable by Fixed devices. The term receive only is not defined in the recent TVWS Order. It was used in the old days for satellite receivers, back when you needed a license to legally pick up a satellite signal. They dropped TVRO licensing after a lot of rural people had put in unauthorized dishes (remember those), prior to the start of DBS services. ju the only snarky insults are the ones that you contributed. Oh, and Jack, I actually did read the whole new policy. Why do you think I joined the great silence greeting a certain other poster's partisan comments earlier today? I'm seriously asking about what you meant, and what position was expressed to the FCC. Really. You didn't answer me. Unless you think worth precisely zero was an insult, though I meant it quite literally. I work with an organization that is pulling a ton of middle-mile fiber which we hope will be attractive to WISPs, to serve currently unserved areas. I've even done some strawman designs in RadioMobile to test the feasibility. But those areas (hill towns) have houses, not to mention CAIs (on fiber) and thus obvious AP sites, higher than 75m HAAT. So the height rules are a real problem in both directions. I read your FCC posting and saw the term receive only. It also talked about moving towers below the 75m limit, and didn't directly address subscribers. But the Fixed rules apply to subscriber sites too. A WISP could often beam uphill, rather than downhill, if it were only the towers, but Fixed APs will more often talk to Fixed subscribers than to personal/portable ones. Especially when the available channels are below Ch. 21. So it's a real technical/regulatory issue I'm raising. Does anyone else here think I'm being insulting? Have I made the question clear? Or is Jack just being overly defensive? --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM Maybe explain what it means to WISPs? On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, Jack Unger http://us.mc525.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jun...@ask-wi.comjun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Fred,many of those tvws channels are untouchable,unless you run your tx at 40mw.A full duplex system has the ap at full power on one channel,the s/u tx ing on a low power only channel in full duplex.Many more channels are then available and you may now see the reason for this...BTW,those low power channels are considered mobile and wouldnt have all the restrictions.Do you see my point?Jason --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: From: Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:58 PM At 10/14/2010 08:35 PM, Jason Bailey wrote: In the days of two way radio,we had a great tx site,but low power handhelds(customer radios) couldnt be heard well by the reciever at that main tx site.We then installed remote reciever sites to be able to better hear the handhelds(customer radios)They uaually heard the main tx site fine. Jason That makes sense when power is highly asymmetrical, as with an HT. However, power limits on TVWS are all low -- 4 W ERP max for a fixed unit -- so there's little reason to do that. A wireless mic (personal/portable) system just might, if it has to cover a fairly large area, but that's not what WISPs need. And wireless mics (non-fixed devices) aren't subject to the HAAT limit; their receivers can be anywhere too. Channels up to 20 are only usable by Fixed devices. The term receive only is not defined in the recent TVWS Order. It was used in the old days for satellite receivers, back when you needed a license to legally pick up a satellite signal. They dropped TVRO licensing after a lot of rural people had put in unauthorized dishes (remember those), prior to the start of DBS services. ju the only snarky insults are the ones that you contributed. Oh, and Jack, I actually did read the whole new policy. Why do you think I joined the great silence greeting a certain other poster's partisan comments earlier today? I'm seriously asking about what you meant, and what position was expressed to the FCC. Really. You didn't answer me. Unless you think worth precisely zero was an insult, though I meant it quite literally. I work with an organization that is pulling a ton of middle-mile fiber which we hope will be attractive to WISPs, to serve currently unserved areas. I've even done some strawman designs in RadioMobile to test the feasibility. But those areas (hill towns) have houses, not to mention CAIs (on fiber) and thus obvious AP sites, higher than 75m HAAT. So the height rules are a real problem in both directions. I read your FCC posting and saw the term receive only. It also talked about moving towers below the 75m limit, and didn't directly address subscribers. But the Fixed rules apply to subscriber sites too. A WISP could often beam uphill, rather than downhill, if it were only the towers, but Fixed APs will more often talk to Fixed subscribers than to personal/portable ones. Especially when the available channels are below Ch. 21. So it's a real technical/regulatory issue I'm raising. Does anyone else here think I'm being insulting? Have I made the question clear? Or is Jack just being overly defensive? --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com wrote: From: Josh Luthman j...@imaginenetworksllc.com Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 8:26 PM Maybe explain what it means to WISPs? On Oct 14, 2010 8:17 PM, Jack Unger jun...@ask-wi.com wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two-way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
Jack my friend, I think you may have been rather harsh with Fred. For someone who isn't aware of where the FCC Committee is heading with this, it does sound somewhat illogical. IMHO, such a harsh tone pretty much wiped out my previous attempt today to build membership. I thought posting the Ex Parte would be icing on the cake and show the non-members what they are getting for their dues. You know I respect you very highly. I feel I owe it to you as a friend to encourage you to try and explain it in clearer fashion so everyone can understand. I thought maybe Steve would step in and explain things but he must be away tonight. Regards, Rick -Original Message- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Jack Unger Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:49 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday Oops, typo corrected in 2nd line below (added the word you). On 10/14/2010 5:44 PM, Jack Unger wrote: Hello Fred, Regarding snarky insults - a simple review of this email thread reveals that the only snarky insults are the ones that you contributed. Please review WISPA's mailing list policies athttp://www.wispa.org/?page_id=9. Regarding your strong RF and regulatory background I offer the following for your consideration. 1. Join WISPA. A quick review of WISPA's billing server did not return either your name or your domain name. Of course, if you are (or once you become) a WISPA Member then go to step 2 (below). 2. Join WISPA's FCC Committee and apply your expertise by working with WISPA's dedicated, FCC Committee Members who volunteer hundreds of hours of work to keep abreast of wireless technology and who discuss, draft and file WISPA's FCC comments. Again, have a great day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:28 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 08:16 PM, you wrote: Fred, If you don't know how to use this then don't use it. Simple. Making snarky insults doesn't answer the question. Quite frankly I have a pretty strong RF and regulatory background so it is not a good idea to treat me like a dunce. So I'll ask the question differently. Do I need to create a new petition or did you address the up-the-hill WISP subscriber issue? I am looking at potential subscriber locations above 75m HAAT. So I want WISPs to be able to put a radio there. I'm really confused at what you're trying to do. Do you really call subscriber units (I'm imagining the TVWS version of a NanoStation) receive only (I don't), or do you really only want receivers? Which of course don't fall under those rules anyway. Thank-you for your opinion and have a good day. jack On 10/14/2010 5:13 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:35 PM, you wrote: Fred, Sites with TVWS receiving equipment instead of TVWS base stations that transmit. Yes, which is worth precisely zero to a WISP, since we need two- way transceivers. The only receive-only equipment is what goes with wireless mics; the mics themselves are transmit only. jack On 10/14/2010 3:22 PM, Fred Goldstein wrote: At 10/14/2010 06:12 PM, you wrote: Steve Coran (respresenting WISPA), Comsearch, Motorola and Spectrum Bridge met with Julius Knapp and others from the FCC OET office yesterday in regard to certain limiting factors in the TVWS Memorandum Report Order language. Below is the Ex parte Filing that was made today. Rick, when you guys said to remove the HAAT restriction for receive-only sites, did you really mean receive-only, or did you mean the PtP subscriber (slave) station that talks to the tower? I am glad to see action this soon on the 76-meter issue, since it not only impacts tower locations, but subscriber sites. -- 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/ -- Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. Author - Deploying License-Free Wireless Wide-Area Networks Serving the Broadband Wireless, 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
Re: [WISPA] WISPA Ex Parte Filing from yesterday
At 10/14/2010 09:05 PM, Jason Bailey wrote: Fred,many of those tvws channels are untouchable,unless you run your tx at 40mw.A full duplex system has the ap at full power on one channel,the s/u tx ing on a low power only channel in full duplex.Many more channels are then available and you may now see the reason for this...BTW,those low power channels are considered mobile and wouldnt have all the restrictions.Do you see my point?Jason And Brian added, The request was made for the simple reason of being able to use the 40 mw devices in a split radio architecture. If anyone caught my posting about how far you can broadcast with 40 mw, it might make more sense. If you transmit on one end of a link using 40 mw radio you could use a high gain antenna on the other ends receiver to make up for the low power. Design a radio with a separate receiver from the transmitter and you can have a multipoint system that can operate in the first adjacent channels and still work for a WISP. The key concept is that your transmitter does not use the same antenna as your receiver keeping the power levels fully legal. The 40 mw devices in the first adjacent channels do not have any HAAT limits. They are referred to as mobile devices. Yes, I see what you're talking about; see my comments below. There was a potential problem in the rules to make this work. There was one little statement that said any transmitter and/or receiver could not exceed the HAAT rules. It makes no sense for a receiver to have to abide by that since it cannot cause interference. The FCC apparently agreed. I don't read the new rules that way, but perhaps I'm missing something. I does talk about TVBD devices, but I take that to be transmitting devices, based on the context of Part 15 and the surrounding words. FCC language is however sometimes ambiguous. Make that often ambiguous. So clarification is a good idea. 40 mw transmit into a no gain antenna is legal, a 15 dbi receive antenna on the other end is legal to. Put one of each in all radio devices and we can operate in the first adjacent channels, PLUS you can transmit and receive on separate frequencies thus having 12 MHz to work with. Yes, I see the configuration you have in mind. I get how the 40 mW personal/portable rules allow adjacent-channel operation just outside the contour, so they fit in places that both 100 mW p/p and Fixed devices don't. It could be useful for some kinds of applications, especially, I'd guess, backhaul links, where FDX is most useful and big receive antennas aren't a problem. Dual antennas seems more unweidly for a subscriber AP. However, portables are only usable on channels 21 and up, so if your area has only channels from 2-20 available, or even say one channel above 20 (which is the case in some areas I've looked at), then you can't run much or any personal/portable devices, since VHF and 14-20 are Fixed only. Also, 40 mW, or more precisely -1,8 dBm/100 kHz spectral density (which is more constraining on narrowband modes), is not a lot of EIRP, especially for a rural WISP. 20 dB more makes a lot of difference. Even the 4W EIRP number strikes me as needlessly low, especially if it is highly directional gain. (1W TPO, on the other hand, seems quite generous.) I'd rather they had adopted, say, the 2.4 GHz PtP compromise, where extra antenna gain is partially, but not completely, offset by lower TPO. So it sounds to me like I should get some of my compadres together here and Petition to loosen up the HAAT restriction a bit. I'll probably ask them to allow operation there but with lower EIRP in the direction of any protected contour within some reasonable distance, but not zero, and allowable on any channel where Fixed devices can go. (I don't see why a device should have to lower the EIRP that's aimed away from any nearby protected contour.) Maybe something like the FM broadcast contour height/power tables in 73.333. Especially the 15 km curve. Offhand (very!) that looks like (compared to 75m) about 4 dB at 120 m, around 12 dB at 200m, and 18 dB at 1000m. Brian and Jason, thanks for clarifying the position. -- 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/
