Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I agree with Lonnie. Kurt Fankhauser WaveLinc www.wavelinc.com 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 > APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance > is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the > transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your > lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. > > I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple > rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of > polluting it for close in shots. > > You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you > continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and > wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot > antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just > over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), > yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power > cards. > > In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take > the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas > if the rules get changed as you are proposing. > > I say that is a mistake. > > Regards, > Lonnie > > > On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a > > pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long > > distances. > > > > For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the > > deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building > > owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > > > Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a > > tough rule to deal with. > > > > I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person > > at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > > > I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for > > the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band > > due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power > > control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > > > Thoughts? > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > Kurt Fankhauser WaveLinc www.wavelinc.com 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I agree with you, Lonnie. So does JohnnyO, but he won't admit it publicly because of the Canadian factor :) The 400mw cards will help in the areas of sectors - more coverage in a wider area over a shorter distance, which will help, believe me. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 12:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's > a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very > long distances. > > For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often > kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or > the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road > it's a tough rule to deal with. > > I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the > person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna > rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue > interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss > out an APC (automatic power > control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > Thoughts? > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL -WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
See inline comments please :-* for your reading pleasure Charles Wu wrote: The other day, I stated what you just said, and I got flamed by Johnny O for "poo-pooing" the WISP industry Now, I state that the WISP industry is a force, and I get smacked again Jeez... Awww now, I didn't smack you, but you may get smacked for calling us cheap and broke!! In the South that is something only our wives and Moms can do. That comment is out of bounds for anyone else. That said, although WISPs are cheap and WISPs have no money and etc etc etc, you can't deny the fact that collectively speaking, the WISP industry is "somewhat" of a force in the broadband industry. Right now, it's estimated that there are over 1 million broadband subs in the US alone being serviced by WISPs...given that there are only about 30 million broadband subs in total around the country, 1/30th of the market isn't exactly "nothing" I dint say we were "nothing" - - I said we wouldn't make a pimple on a telco's ass. If you have ever had a pimple on your ass you couldn't deny its presence as it would demand an occasional scratch to remind you it was really there! Thats what we as WISPs are - - - an occasional annoyance to the Telcos. Individually we arent anything, but collectively we are seen, heard and "will be" a force to be reckoned with in the coming future. If we ever get our "stuff" together it would be possible to eliminate the need for the Telcos and their fiber - - but now I have gone to dreaming. In fact, if the WISP market didn't exist, why would the FCC, in their 3650 ruling, state that it was set aside for WISPs See, I told you collectively we were a pimple! Maybe in another year we may "fester" - - hehehehehe Hrm...maybe this is impetus to do a survey of the WISP industry (e.g., let's find every WISP) - get a customer count, etc - it would be interesting to now what the true size of it actually is Some food for thought IMPETUS: 1. An impelling force; an impulse. 2. The force or energy associated with a moving body. 3. 1. Something that incites; a stimulus. 2. Increased activity in response to a stimulus: /The approaching deadline gave impetus to the investigation./ You made me go to the dictionary already this morning. I would just as soon the Govt wait another year or two before they demand all WISPs report irregardless of the subscriber count. I think in a couple more years that we collectively will have a good market share of the total subscribers on high speed internet. I think then that we will have the attention of the Country and be recognized as a force that demands (and deserves) attention and respect. I do believe that we will cause the eyes of a lot of big business to roll around a time or two in their heads. The delivery of VOIP on our networks will be a leading cause of this IMHO. Anytime the Govt allows us to compete with the Telcos in this fashion - - - - it has got to make a wave!! -- Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-303-4107 - Monroe, La 318-450-4101 - NOC -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL -WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
Everything has already been setup by WISPA. One of the major things WISPA needs to be this force it numbers. Everyone on this list needs to join. JOIN NOW! Mac Dearman wrote: See inline comments please :-* for your reading pleasure Charles Wu wrote: The other day, I stated what you just said, and I got flamed by Johnny O for "poo-pooing" the WISP industry Now, I state that the WISP industry is a force, and I get smacked again Jeez... Awww now, I didn't smack you, but you may get smacked for calling us cheap and broke!! In the South that is something only our wives and Moms can do. That comment is out of bounds for anyone else. That said, although WISPs are cheap and WISPs have no money and etc etc etc, you can't deny the fact that collectively speaking, the WISP industry is "somewhat" of a force in the broadband industry. Right now, it's estimated that there are over 1 million broadband subs in the US alone being serviced by WISPs...given that there are only about 30 million broadband subs in total around the country, 1/30th of the market isn't exactly "nothing" I dint say we were "nothing" - - I said we wouldn't make a pimple on a telco's ass. If you have ever had a pimple on your ass you couldn't deny its presence as it would demand an occasional scratch to remind you it was really there! Thats what we as WISPs are - - - an occasional annoyance to the Telcos. Individually we arent anything, but collectively we are seen, heard and "will be" a force to be reckoned with in the coming future. If we ever get our "stuff" together it would be possible to eliminate the need for the Telcos and their fiber - - but now I have gone to dreaming. In fact, if the WISP market didn't exist, why would the FCC, in their 3650 ruling, state that it was set aside for WISPs See, I told you collectively we were a pimple! Maybe in another year we may "fester" - - hehehehehe Hrm...maybe this is impetus to do a survey of the WISP industry (e.g., let's find every WISP) - get a customer count, etc - it would be interesting to now what the true size of it actually is Some food for thought IMPETUS: 1. An impelling force; an impulse. 2. The force or energy associated with a moving body. 3. 1. Something that incites; a stimulus. 2. Increased activity in response to a stimulus: /The approaching deadline gave impetus to the investigation./ You made me go to the dictionary already this morning. I would just as soon the Govt wait another year or two before they demand all WISPs report irregardless of the subscriber count. I think in a couple more years that we collectively will have a good market share of the total subscribers on high speed internet. I think then that we will have the attention of the Country and be recognized as a force that demands (and deserves) attention and respect. I do believe that we will cause the eyes of a lot of big business to roll around a time or two in their heads. The delivery of VOIP on our networks will be a leading cause of this IMHO. Anytime the Govt allows us to compete with the Telcos in this fashion - - - - it has got to make a wave!! -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Nope. Sorry Gain comes from smaller beams. You can't make an antenna cover a smaller area without making it have a higher gain. Unless you make a REALLY crappy antenna. Believe me, I've been asking for something like that for years. After the 6th engineer at an antenna company told me the same thing I actually started to believe it ;-). Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:39 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I'm in favor of that How about just requiring tighter beam control on 6ghz stuff ? I'm sure a 2 foot dish could be restricted down to a tighter beam... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:37 PM To: FCC Discussion Cc: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemou
Re: [WISPA] Friday Special - Get a new grill!! Free!!
Flip the cart over and it works much better, um, er, so im told :-) Jeromie Reeves Shayne Rose wrote: For those of you that cook and even for those that don't. More big weekends are coming, and if you need a new grill, here is a bargain for you. Stainless steel BBQ grill, for FREE! You read right, FREE! Available at: Vons, Kroger,Safeway, Giant Eagle,WalMart, Walgreens, Albertsons. Hurry before they run out of stock! (Be sure not to get the cheap, imitation plastic type!) Your pal, BUBBA P.S. picture attached -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC &DSL-WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
Charles, I gotto stand behind both your comments. Yes, the BELLs are AWARE of WISPs. Exactly why we need to protect the use of the Spectrum for our own special interests. And YES, WISPs are a force today. It not about how large a force, but a force that has a unique ability to tackle the problems of a unique niche in the market. Wisp server people that no one else can serve as of today. WISPs are also available to marketers, we own the eye balls to the underserved population. In our market segment, we are the dominant player. The ILECs in some cases are actually minorities in some of our markets. The fact that the ILEC may dominate their markets is irrelevant. What will be exciting is when WISPs collectively share the vision that they are infact valuable, and use that leverage to also compete head to head in ILEC markets, not just the underserved. Today most of the recognition for WISPs always refers to underserved. I think we have the wrong approach in what we ask for. The Governement say here some money or spectrum for you as a gift to go serve that underserved area that no one else wants even the ILECCs that are paid USF funds to go deploy it. What we should be asking is, We'll go deploy those underserved areas, but in trade, we want a peice of the action in prime markets to help subsidize our underserved operations. Or let us have those subsidees, grants, small business programs, that every other industry has to support rural and small business development. Why isn't it important to have it in the Internet Provider industry to? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Charles Wu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:02 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC &DSL-WBIA ACTIONRecommendation FWIW, the Bells ARE AWARE that WISPs exist and are figuring out what to do about them...(I can attest to this personally) -Charles --- WISPNOG Park City, UT http://www.wispnog.com August 15-17, 2005 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom DeReggi Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 8:19 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL-WBIA ACTIONRecommendation Well thats not true. They do it every day. Life is not fair and life is not equal. Its all about votes and keeping the majority happy. Even if the ultimate goal was to regul;ate WISPs as well, it could takes years to finally have that happen in the courts, if enough resistence was put forth to support unequal views that benefited consumers. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL -WBIA ACTIONRecommendation Charles, I think that statement is about the most ridiculous (& hilarious) thing I have ever heard you say. I am glad that its in writing! :-) If all the WISPs in the country banded together we wouldn't be a pimple on the ass of a Telco like the Bells. We are so far from even being thought of as a mosquito in a heard of Elephants compared to the ILECs. You may scare some folks with that statement, but those of us who have been here a while and have a real picture of "whats what" know better than that. Try Again :-) -- Mac Dearman Maximum Access, LLC. www.inetsouth.com 318-728-8600 - Rayville 318-303-4107 - Monroe, La 318-450-4101 - NOC Charles Wu wrote: Here's the issue If you vote to regulate the bells, then you (as WISPs) must also be ready to ultimately submit yourself (or at least your facilities based network infrastructure) to regulation sometime in the near future - to requote myself...the government won't support "double standards" Good or bad, that's hard to say -Charles --- WISPNOG Park City, UT http://www.wispnog.com August 15-17, 2005 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:52 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTIONRecommendation Anyone care to comment on this? Should we also jump into this? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTION Recommendation -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics
Re: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
We are already regulated to a degree. One regulation was to declare that all broadband operators must file a form 477? I think that is the number. This is just the first of a hundred other steps that all add up to what is commonly referred to as regulation. The constraints we have on the frequencies we use and the protections (or lack thereof) that we have are also regulated. The system certification requirements for any gear used in our bands is a form of regulation. The ability to access locations for placement of antennas is a form of regulation. Whether or not we can or cannot filter content on the Internet itself is a form of regulation. The FCC is mandating that VOIP traffic be allowed to flow through all networks unencumbered is a regulation. The ability for us to remain free of liability for the content that others store or transmit on the Internet is part of the regulation of our industry. The Code of Federal "Regulations" has much to say about how we operate our business. The next time someone says we are unregulated just give them a few of these examples. If given time I am sure I can come up with many more. Scriv Charles Wu wrote: Here's the issue If you vote to regulate the bells, then you (as WISPs) must also be ready to ultimately submit yourself (or at least your facilities based network infrastructure) to regulation sometime in the near future - to requote myself...the government won't support "double standards" Good or bad, that's hard to say -Charles --- WISPNOG Park City, UT http://www.wispnog.com August 15-17, 2005 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 11:52 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Fw: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTIONRecommendation Anyone care to comment on this? Should we also jump into this? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 4:13 PM Subject: [WISP] Fw: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTION Recommendation -- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: "Frank Muto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:51 PM Subject: [isp-clec] FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTION Recommendation For all competitive service providers, or other businesses offering Internet related products and or services, and their customers. Tomorrow, or very soon thereafter, we will see the FCC deregulate Open Access. What does this mean and what should you do? While the answers are not clear on what the new terms and conditions for access (if any) will mean to thousands of ISP's we do know that this does not bode well for the future of our industry. While the argument on the Hill has been that this will create greater competition, any first grader who can count apples and oranges will recognize that when you take a bunch of them off the table there will be fewer to count and compete. It defies logic that the Bells have been able to sell this argument, but I suppose if you say it long and loud enough it mysteriously becomes a truth. First, brace yourself for it is going to be a rough and bumpy ride. Second, while it will not change the immediate outcome, it is contingent upon us to mobilize and send a message to the FCC that we are watching and are organizing our industry, business and consumers in opposition. As soon as you read this message take a moment to send word to each of the FCC Commissioners about your concerns and the consequences to your business and that the ultimate impact of deregulation will be bad for America, small business, consumers and our economy. It would also be a good idea to copy your congressional representatives office when you send the message. You can find congressional contact information in the WBIA Legislative Action Center at http://capwiz.com/wbia/home/. For your convenience we have provided the Email address for each of the FCC Commissioners and a sample letter which you are welcome to use in crafting your own message. Edit accordingly to give out to your customers. For posting a letter (not comment) on the FCC Electronic Comment Filing System, do one post each of the following dockets: 04-29, 04-416, 04-440 and 04-405. Copy, paste and edit the below sample letter, edit to your liking and submit a PDF or Word .doc. Make sure they know who you are and use company letter head. Create another for your customers and or have them sign off on a petition and list all t
[WISPA] Why ILEC regulation is different from Cable and WISP regulation... WAS: Re: FCC & DSL - WBIA ACTIONRecommendation
Charles, Given your position on this issue, I have to believe that your comments are partially tongue-in-cheek. The telcos have had a government-mandated monopoly for over 50 years where they were allowed to collect monopolistic profits to build the grand network that they possess today. They own their cable plants as a direct result of the money that the public contributed (and continue to contribute in most areas) to them; not because they were one of the competitors offering a top-notch service. The ILECs continue to control last-mile access to consumers not because it is impossible for competitors to mirror their connectivity, but because it is cost-prohibitive to build that infrastructure when the expected gross return hovers around $300/year [1]. ILECs aren't comparable to cable providers for three reasons: 1) cable providers generally built their networks from capitol generated from their operations without financial assistance from the government and were not granted taxation authority to subsidize network construction a la USF; 2) Cable providers' services have not been a nearly required utility for the past 50 years. 3) Cable providers have cost-analogous competition in virtually every market from Satellite based television providers, video rental stores, online information services, etc. ILECs aren't comparable to WISPs for the same reasons above and for these additional reasons: 1) WISPs for the most part haven't had any assistance from the public sector that wasn't available to any other business at the time; 2) WISPs could have a viable competitor enter their market at any time for a relatively low start-up cost. The only potentially limiting factor is tower locations and as many of you know, if one municipality rejects you, you just beam it in from outside the town [2]; 3) Most WISPs have little power to eliminate competition by undercharging because they don't have the ability to generate monopolistic profits from other operations. The ILECs are deathly afraid that the government will not allow them to exclusively exploit their monopoly-gained infrastructure because they know that their operation is so incredibly inefficient and out-dated that they can't compete with other carriers even when they are on slightly-elevated ground. If $14.95/month business 1.5MB DSL isn't desperate dumping to eliminate competition, I don't know what is. They couldn't do this without their monopoly phone line revenue from the past 75 years. How much do they charge for a T-1? $700/month? Is it really that much different? Allowing ILECs to prevent competitors from using their newly-built infrastructure in 2004 was a shaky proposition because they usually possess the ability to build that infrastructure as a direct result of their previous monopoly. Allowing ILECs to prevent others from using their existing infrastructure that was paid for as a direct result of their monopoly amounts to nothing less than government corporate welfare which will lead to fewer choices for consumers [3] and higher prices [4] for the services that they have the privilege of ordering from the duopoly. - Tony P.S. Anyone want to bid on this with me? Oh, you don't have enough capital? I can't imagine why... http://news.com.com/2061-10800_3-5819312.html [1] Assuming $50/month revenue and a 50% chance that they choose a competitor. Yes, I know that we can bundle services to get this number to $100 or more, but that generally hasn't happened and it's simpler to just talk about Internet-based services. Additionally, the _net_ return from an individual consumer probably hovers around $200/year. Can you even build wireless connectivity for this kind of return while running the inefficient operations that the ILECs have? [2] Maybe this part of WISP operations should be regulated. I can see some benefit to having an equal-access-to-towers regulation that covers all structures in an economically- or politically-limited tower environment. [3] Most ISPs rely on ILEC connectivity for either last-mile access to their customers or for their interconnectivity to the Internet. If the ILECs are allowed to discontinue or artificially inflate the cost of these services we will see a similar loss-of-competition that occurred three years ago with competing DSL providers. [4] They will probably look lower though. I am amazed by how foolish most consumers act. Many actually believe that $14.95/month DSL + $50/month (required) phone line is a better deal than $35/month Internet and $25/month (optional) phone line. Maybe a consistent pricing system is a better way for government to foster broadband development. On 8/4/2005 12:07 PM, Charles Wu created: > Here's the issue > > If you vote to regulate the bells, then you (as WISPs) must also be ready to > ultimately submit yourself (or at least your facilities based network > infrastructure) to regulation sometime in the near future - to requote > myself...the government won
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Yep, the larger the aperture, the more narrow the beam, the higher the gain. beam,Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:08:48 -0700 >From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >To: "WISPA General List" > >Nope. Sorry Gain comes from smaller beams. You can't make an antenna >cover a smaller area without making it have a higher gain. Unless you make >a REALLY crappy antenna. Believe me, I've been asking for something like >that for years. After the 6th engineer at an antenna company told me the >same thing I actually started to believe it ;-). > >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:39 PM >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I'm in favor of that > >How about just requiring tighter beam control on 6ghz stuff ? > >I'm sure a 2 foot dish could be restricted down to a tighter beam... > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 >Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:37 PM >To: FCC Discussion >Cc: wireless@wispa.org >Subject: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > >Hi All, > >For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a >pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long >distances. > >For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the >deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building >owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > >Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a >tough rule to deal with. > >I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person >at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > >I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for >the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band >due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power >control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > >Thoughts? >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson St. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517) 547-8410 Mobile: (517) 605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have litt
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. Sadly I cannot find that statement. I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. Lonnie On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marlon and Lonnie, > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest > rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in > these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every > ounce of spectrum that we can. > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to > have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna > requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost > effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the > band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable > for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced > down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy > getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, > excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking > about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much > unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or > Trango :-) > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's > >licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want > > to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some > > minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all > > that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because > > you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear > > it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me > > that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. > > Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen > > that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. > > Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have > > protection against that. > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. > > He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys > > won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's > > getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some > > ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good > > Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the > > potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the > > rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives > > us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things > > is a good thing to try to do. > > > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > > APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance > > is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the >
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
>From Lonnie : You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. Maybe this is where that impression came from Lonnie ? :) JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 5:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. Sadly I cannot find that statement. I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. Lonnie On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marlon and Lonnie, > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do > poor designs. > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially > in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access > to every ounce of spectrum that we can. > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way > to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot > antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the > band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could > have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it > usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement > was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 > degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market > today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we > are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that > doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about > unlicenced redline or Trango :-) > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > List" > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and > >it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would > > we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just > > because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely > > screw up? > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not > > all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that > > gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because > > it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once > > told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with > > our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely > > enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to > > deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference > > isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or > > 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the > > big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting > > by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig > > band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the > > antenna size issue. > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a > > good Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near > > the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good > > thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that > > anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad > > people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. > > > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net mee
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just that simple. I honestly see few down sides to this idea. I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meet
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I have some experience at 6, 11, 13, 18 & 23 GHz, more at 6, 11 &13. These were all carrier links never used a 6' dish unless it was a short path, less than 8 mi., usually 6 or less. WE built 40 dB fade margin into every path. tried to keep the radiated signal beem as narrow as possible, larger antennas, greater gain, they don't burn out. Downside is stiffer towers, very expensive. However, at 6 and 11 you can get 672 Mb/s and that's good. I don't have the money right now or I would have a two hop system to Southfield MI where a meg is around 100-125. My point, the licensed spectrum is excellent, no interference, and w/ enough fade margin it rocks. Lonnie and Marlon - I support everything they say, nearly. We need to use whatever we can get our hands on, that lifts our advantage. So keep it up guys. Original message >Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:03:55 -0700 >From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >To: "WISPA General List" > >Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a >shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. >For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. > >Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. >Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you >get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just >that simple. > >I honestly see few down sides to this idea. > >I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far >it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a >bit shocked. > >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > >> Marlon and Lonnie, >> >> First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest >> rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. >> >> However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in >> these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to >> every ounce of spectrum that we can. >> >> I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to >> have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna >> requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost >> effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the >> band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I >> think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. >> I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it >> usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was >> reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and >> pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. >> >> Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, >> excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking >> about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean >> much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline >> or Trango :-) >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >> >> >>>I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's >>>licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. >>> >>> As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we >>> want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because >>> some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? >>> >>> Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could >>> modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all >>> that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear >>> because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's >>> licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. >>> >>> It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told >>> me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. >>> Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen >>
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
We need more spectrum that is *our* spectrum not just spectrum to have spectrum. Sure we have what we have but we are sharing it with devices other than what we use that help trash it. John > > Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. > Sadly I cannot find that statement. > > I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we > should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their > spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things > to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of > bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. > > Lonnie > > > On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marlon and Lonnie, > > > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > suggest > > rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. > > > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in > > these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to > every > > ounce of spectrum that we can. > > > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way > to > > have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna > > requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost > > effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for > the > > band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I > think > > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it > usable > > for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was > reduced > > down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty > easy > > getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, > > excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are > talking > > about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean > much > > unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or > > Trango :-) > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > List" > > > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's > > >licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we > want > > > to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because > some > > > minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? > > > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not > all > > > that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear > because > > > you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed > gear > > > it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once > told me > > > that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. > > > Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to > happen > > > that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those > issues. > > > Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You > have > > > protection against that. > > > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or > 900. > > > He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy > toys > > > won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's > > > getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull > some > > > ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. > > > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good > > > Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the > > > potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do > the > > > rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that > gives > > > us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad > things > > > is a good thing to try to do. > > > > > > Marlon > > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own > wisp! > > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > > www.ode
