I've not been through much of the document yet, but it looks like we got the
ability to run fixed unlicensed wireless at 4 watts. Not the 20 watts we'd
asked for, but much better than the rumored 100mw.
Personal portable devices ARE limited to 100mw. That should help with the
tragedy of the
Link?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 11:10 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject:
I'm about 30 pages in or so... and realized I should be taking notes... I
hope to finish it in the next few days too.
But I agree... 4 watts EIRP... 1 watt out of the radio. Fixed devices
cannot use adjacent channels... but portable can at reduced EIRP (which I
can't recall what that was).
I would buy one today if I could.
But if everyone bought these, where would we get those power lines for
BPL? :)
David Smith
MVN.net
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
www.fcc.gov
Gino Villarini wrote:
Link?
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Monday, November 17,
Just to clear things up:
The EPA has not yet accepted these, but the type of device is not
susceptible to melting down, blowing up, or anything else like that. The
module you are seeing is just the reactor, and it is JUST a heat generator
to make steam. You need a building to house the
Yep. I'm still reading too but so far it looks like we got 90% of what
we asked for. My reading continues...
3-dB Networks wrote:
I'm about 30 pages in or so... and realized I should be taking notes... I
hope to finish it in the next few days too.
But I agree... 4 watts EIRP... 1 watt out of
Give the maintenance guys Flash drives?
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 9:53 AM
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Subject:
Yep, at the expense of the many for the benefit of the few, IMHO.
Scottie
-- Original Message --
From: RickG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:32:10 -0500
Basically, except for a few viable
Now that TV whitespaces have been approved for our use, let's hear from the
vendors. When, how much, and what will you do with it?
Ladies and gents: I haven't read all of the published information yet, but
this is the second greatest battle we have come across (second only to having
Everyone remember that I sent out a Google Earth file of what should be most
of the digital TV footprint in America after February. That is subject to
change of course but it's close. You would use that tool to find available
channels in your area. It works great because you can turn on the
Daniel,
Comments inline...
But I agree... 4 watts EIRP... 1 watt out of the radio.
Which is enough, for many Fixed applications.
Fixed devices cannot use adjacent channels... but portable can at
reduced EIRP (which I
can't recall what that was).
Which is just about what WISPA asked
IN THE MATTER OF UNLICENSED OPERATION IN THE TV BROADCAST BANDS, ADDITIONAL
SPECTRUM FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES BELOW 900 MHZ AND IN THE 3
GHZ BAND. FCC Adopted Rules For Unlicensed Use of Television White
Spaces. (Dkt No. 02-380, 04-186). Action by: the Commission. Adopted:
11/04/2008 by RO.
Anyone out there still have an older navini system in place? If so, I need
some assistance if someone has a minute or two.
Thanks!
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
Thanks Bill.
Faisal Imtiaz
Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
Ph: (305) 663-5518 x 232
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jason Hensley
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:47 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: [WISPA] Navini
Motorola is likely to be first out of the chute. But none of them were
putting the final touches on anything until the rules were published. Now
they have to finish their products, do type approvals, do beta tests, then
perhaps we will see some new tools to use. I'll bet it will be 6 months
???
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Faisal Imtiaz
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:24 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Navini
Thanks Bill.
Faisal Imtiaz
Computer Office Solutions Inc. /SnappyDSL.net
Ph: (305)
Now that the 802.11y-2008 standard has been finalized, what can we expect?
Will anyone be deploying gear in that spectrum? What vendors are the
current players?
Everything I have seen in that spectrum is using Wimax.
Ligowave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wyble
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:43 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] 3.65Ghz / 802.11y-2008
Now that the 802.11y-2008 standard has been finalized, what can we expect?
Jason,
Thanks for that.
According to http://ligowave.com/?q=news/2 they aren't legal for US
operation.
I do like the price point. I like it very much.
Jason Hensley wrote:
Ligowave
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wyble
My guess is 12 months before anything is shipping.
Travis
Microserv
Chuck McCown wrote:
Motorola is likely to be first out of the chute. But none of them were
putting the final touches on anything until the rules were published. Now
they have to finish their products, do type
Ultimately, I imagine anyone that has a product we use now will be there.
First? Ubiquiti, no doubt. They are very fast at developing products and
already have a product for the 700 MHz band with really no users, although
700 MHz is a different animal than 50 - 690.
-
Mike Hammett
With all the specs to comply Its going to be a difficult one... Not
as easy as downshifting a 802.11a radio
Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
How do you get that from that link? They just recently received FCC
approval in the band, so I'm sure they're legal.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Charles Wyble
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:54 PM
To: WISPA General List
Jason Hensley wrote:
How do you get that from that link? They just recently received FCC
approval in the band, so I'm sure they're legal.
They just updated that link. I got an e-mail back from sales apologizing for
overlooking the update. :)
Thank you for the reference. I will be
According to their product specification sheet they have FCC/CE
certification and a US operating range of 3.650 - 3.675 GHz
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Charles Wyble wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for that.
According to http://ligowave.com/?q=news/2 they aren't legal for US
operation.
I do
Thanks for catching that...it must not have been updated when the grant
was received. The PTP3 is in fact certified for US operation.
Internationally, it can operate from 3.3GHz to 3.7GHz.
-Harold
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 12:53 -0800, Charles Wyble wrote:
Jason,
Thanks for that.
According
Ubquity? Some kind of mini-pci card?
Charles Wyble wrote:
Mike Hammett wrote:
Now that TV whitespaces have been approved for our use, let's hear from the vendors. When, how much, and what will you do with it?
Indeed!
Who would the likely vendors in this space be?
I keep seeing desire to have a special category set aside for PtP backhaul
operations in the whitespaces.
To those of you that understand the extreme rural environments... Is this at
all necessary? I don't see why it would be.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
I agree Tom. But, as with all technolgies, they mature and improve. I
think the biggest advantage of BPL is that the transport (grid) is
already there. Plug play!
BTW: In every meeting I ever went to, when the electric companies
chose the vendor, it was usually Main-net and/or Amperion. Why?
We have been fighting it. Towerstream seems to have somehow created a
perception that they are justified in this desire to set aside TVWS spectrum
for this inefficient use. We have been fighting it and we will continue to
do so.
Scriv
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, Mike Hammett [EMAIL
Even in our area in eastern Indiana there is lots of 5.8 still available
for PTP. 700 PTP is not necessary in my opinion.
I am concerned about 700 Mhz antenna sizes. Aren't sectors going to be
huge to get the 4 watt at the antenna? I am also concerned about the
CPE Panel size. Going from a
At these freqs, I'd suspect that yagi's will be the best choice for
cpe's.
Steve Barnes wrote:
Even in our area in eastern Indiana there is lots of 5.8 still available
for PTP. 700 PTP is not necessary in my opinion.
I am concerned about 700 Mhz antenna sizes. Aren't sectors going to
I don't recall the exact length but we have an enormous fiberglass 450
mhz omni on our tower. At least 12 ft and it withstood the hurricane
of Ohio with 60 mph winds a few months back.
On 11/17/08, Steve Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Even in our area in eastern Indiana there is lots of 5.8
I am concerned about 700 Mhz antenna sizes. Aren't sectors going to be
huge to get the 4 watt at the antenna?
To be clear, TVWS is different than 700 MHz. The 700 MHz band sold at
auction. TVWS is lower in frequency which will mean even larger antennas for
equivalent gain. The physics of it
I've got territory ranging from a town of 35K to open wheat fields to
rolling to tall mountains heavily forested.
I can find no particular need for, and in fact, find that low frequency
backhauls are at least sometimes self-defeating, due to huge Fresnel zones,
for instance. What I need, in
36 matches
Mail list logo
