[WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment
It would be amazing if one time our government could get spectrum policy right. Up until now they have not got it right even once regarding access to spectrum in my opinion. Unlicensed is closer to right than licensed because it at least allows other entrants into the space other than just the ultra-rich. It gives back some of the power to the people. Unlicensed is wrong because it has no possibility of protections at all for those who use this to build their business. That completely stinks.. License auctions create a land grab mentality with little to no thought given to how people will be served in the long run. We have seen this fail time and time again. The right way is for us to finally have a band dedicated to broadband use with some right to run a little power...please!... for God's sake!...give us some power one time! It would start as unlicensed with registration required. As the band could be proven to be substantially used (serving real customers with actual services) by an operator then licenses would be issued. A license would be for only one base station though. If an operator shows he has customers served on a base station then he can apply for a license. No more blanket region licenses. The substantial use provision means nobody gets squatters rights. You either prove you are using the band to serve actual customers on a base station or you run unlicensed until you can prove substantial use. Then the incentive is for operators to build out a network and serve customers as quickly as possible to attain licenses as opposed to buying large regions and squatting on licenses leaving them unused for years or even decades as we see now. If they price it too high then people do not buy service from the operator and the operator cannot get the protection of a license. Note the operator has the right to serve immediately as an unlicensed operator and has an incentive to serve customers as quickly as possible to gain license protections. I think that the licenses should be contingent upon public good for perpetuity. If public good is lost in the future (by an operator who over-prices or sells to a mega-corp who does not care) then the license could become open again if people request this. Charge too much, lose your license. Sell to megasuck.net, lose your license. Provide crap service, lose your license. Note that this does not mean you cannot operate there if you lose your license. It just means you lose your exclusive license and right to impose interference protection. It means competition can move in on you and work toward gaining the license if you do not do your job. This puts the power right where it should be, in the hands of the people. In a 50 MHz band (like 3650) with 10 MHz channels imposed you could conceivably have up to 5 licenses available for 5 base station in any one location. If you are an operator who is building good business relationships you might get all 5 licenses in an area. Maybe not. Maybe you get 2 or 3 and someone else gets some. The point is that you have SOME rights if you do a good job and do not screw the customer. It is time to stop the lack of rights for those building networks on unlicensed bands and stop the squatting on licenses for those with the fattest wallets. It is time for the people to be in control of their spectrum assets. The public good provisions do that. Why should one federal agency get to tell all the people what they can and cannot do with one of our country's most valuable assets? I have a name for this new way of looking at spectrum policy.. I call this Middle Class Spectrum Policy and I would really like to see us all start moving toward this as a group strategy in the future. If we attain some control of spectrum under these terms I am reasonably certain all future spectrum policy would reflect at least the spirit of the policy as outlined above. Do we want to continue to allow policy to happen around us or do we want to start building policy that is forward thinking enough to empower us all? John Scrivner PS. If you are reading this and you have not paid your WISPA dues then go to http://signup.wispa.org/ right now and stop letting others pay to take care of you in D.C. We need your support! Matt Liotta wrote: Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA
RE: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment
I favor substantial use rules and also agree in rejecting squatters rights. A method of issuing licenses I like is the following: 1. licenses are broken up into regional and local. 2. the government sets the price in advance 3. competing parties submit proposals 4. the proposals are evaluated on their benefit to the public 5. parties are also evaluated on their ability to implement 6. a proposal is picked, a license awarded, a timeframe set 7. parties failing in the timeframe requirement lose their license That is a good model in some cases. I also think that auctions have their place, but have to be carefully managed and evidence of collusion needs to be punished massively. I also think unlicensed has its place, and I am all for a registration requirement (not a license, but a registration of active base stations for ALL commercial UL operators), which is something I conceived of and proposed to the Spectrum Policy Task Force back in 2002. With all do respect John, I do not buy the power to the people argument. And I don't buy that all WISPs are pure and good and have the public interest at heart. Most WISPs deploy to fill their capacity, they do not deploy to address equity issues or to make sure that anyone in the cell that wants access gets it. Most WISPs are just as much capitalists pigs as the big guys, only on a smaller scale. And that is fine, but let's not pretend there is some sort of special nobility just by virtue of being a WISP. I've seen my share of folks that I consider noble, but it does not make their business noble. And I've seen more than my share of opportunist scumbags praying on customers, abusing rules, etc. Nothing prevents anyone from creating a business plan that can attract capital and investment and the government is under no obligation to offer commercial rights to those that cannot. Many WISPs started very humbly and succeeded brick by brick and now have multi-million dollar businesses. If a BWA-dedicated UL is finally created, you should realize that anyone can use it, even those companies you revile. There are no rights for use by WISPs only. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 7:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Middle Class Spectrum Policy was:3650 equipment It would be amazing if one time our government could get spectrum policy right. Up until now they have not got it right even once regarding access to spectrum in my opinion. Unlicensed is closer to right than licensed because it at least allows other entrants into the space other than just the ultra-rich. It gives back some of the power to the people. Unlicensed is wrong because it has no possibility of protections at all for those who use this to build their business. That completely stinks.. License auctions create a land grab mentality with little to no thought given to how people will be served in the long run. We have seen this fail time and time again. The right way is for us to finally have a band dedicated to broadband use with some right to run a little power...please!... for God's sake!...give us some power one time! It would start as unlicensed with registration required. As the band could be proven to be substantially used (serving real customers with actual services) by an operator then licenses would be issued. A license would be for only one base station though. If an operator shows he has customers served on a base station then he can apply for a license. No more blanket region licenses. The substantial use provision means nobody gets squatters rights. You either prove you are using the band to serve actual customers on a base station or you run unlicensed until you can prove substantial use. Then the incentive is for operators to build out a network and serve customers as quickly as possible to attain licenses as opposed to buying large regions and squatting on licenses leaving them unused for years or even decades as we see now. If they price it too high then people do not buy service from the operator and the operator cannot get the protection of a license. Note the operator has the right to serve immediately as an unlicensed operator and has an incentive to serve customers as quickly as possible to gain license protections. I think that the licenses should be contingent upon public good for perpetuity. If public good is lost in the future (by an operator who over-prices or sells to a mega-corp who does not care) then the license could become open again if people request this. Charge too much, lose your license. Sell to megasuck.net, lose your license. Provide crap service, lose your license. Note that this does not mean you cannot operate there if you lose your license. It just means you lose your exclusive license and right to impose interference protection. It means competition
Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll
I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF should still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the percentage. This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the Bell's from the CO and form a regulated utility. It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry about a company's PL, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world and see if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and reasonable competition for all. Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not, in the assumption that CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter would have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other (current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality far less the debates they are now. Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of ATT in 1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate the CO plant away from the Bell's. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us - Original Message - From: Peter R. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Coming soon: The Web toll After all this time, you still don't get it USF, taxes, and national interest are built into the PSTN. The FCC E-911 ruling was just one hurdle to prevent VoIP from deflowering the PSTN. As it is, at every turn, the BOCs are losing lines. Cable has taken almost 10M VoIP lines already. Universities are moving to VOIP in droves. U of South Florida in Tampa has 42000 Avaya handsets. U of Central Florida in Orlando has 24000 handsets that Telcove just won from BellSouth. The VPF is on track for 10B minutes. (Might explain Primus' woes). Hurricane damage hurt Sprint, SBC and BST these last 3 years - to the tune of 100's of millions. Profits are dropping quarter over quarter. They are in a price war with cable while racking up debt. Things will be done to preserve the USF fund and the tax base. As Ken said at ISPCON: Who wants to be in office when the PSTN goes down? - Peter Frank Muto wrote: Well one would think so. If the Bell's feel they need to be compensated, then pay the thousand of ISP's and Clec's they put out of business by use of their political contributions. Their day is coming to pay the piper one way or another. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us http://www.wbia.us -- 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] Coming soon: The Web toll
Dreaming... hope you have a Plan B, Ethan Hunt. Frank Muto wrote: I do get it, but at a different view point. I'll agree that the USF should still be available, but let's widen the tax base and lower the percentage. This also is a good time to look again at structural separation of the Bell's from the CO and form a regulated utility. It is time that the FCC and Congress forget it is not their job to worry about a company's PL, i.e., Bell's. Welcome the Bell's to our world and see if they can survive without the CO plants. Then you will have equal and reasonable competition for all. Even if the TA 96 was codified, though it was not, in the assumption that CLEC's were to become facility based, it could have included a sunset of such and also a move to structural separation. Now granted the latter would have caused as much grief as the TA 96 Act itself in having une-p and the Bell's bitching about parasitic users, but it could make some other (current) issues such as Homeland Security, USF and Network Neutrality far less the debates they are now. Structural Separation was basically in place with the divesture of ATT in 1984 and also with the TA 96, that it was essential to create operating systems to split the local and LD. The next step would be to separate the CO plant away from the Bell's. Frank Muto Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment
Hi Matt, You are only limited to 1.5 Mbps service due to the fact that it is almost impossible to achieve anything about a 10 dB SNR In 900 Mhz -- say you had a 25+ dB SNR (e.g., how life works in licensed bands) -- you could deliver 10-15 Mb on a 5 MHz channel -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Liotta Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 9:59 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment The radios that exist for 900Mhz today barely qualify from a delivered bandwidth perspective. We hardly ever lead with a 1.5Mbps service, but sometimes are forced to sell just 1.5Mbps because we can only make the shot with 900Mhz. If we were limited to 5Mhz with a 3.65Ghz radio then I don't see why we would use them at all. 10Mhz would at least be interesting, but that is too much channel space for multually exclusive spectrum. About the only interesting thing you can do with 5Mhz is a WiMAX mobile service, but it would never compete with a similar service operating in 2.3Ghz or 2.5Ghz (not that I think a 5Mhz WiMAX mobile service in those bands does much to compete with 3G anyway). Ultimatelly, I think a 5Mhz license is only going to create 3G me too services that aren't that interesting. I know all the radio manufactures would love that since services that target individuals sell more radios, but alas, I am not a radio manufacture. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: Respectfully, I do not agree. Look how much is done in UL with just 26MHz in 900MHz, most of which is not useable due to the noise of high power primary users and consumer devices. Also, rural customers and operators should have the ability to achieve high QoS services and not merely best effort. Splitting the band leaves some room for both types of services. I would also prefer the UL part of the split to be broken up into something like 5MHz channels so gear is not sold into the market that will use the entire swath of band from one radio UNLESS it is a P2P radio, in which case the entire range should be usable. Patrick -Original Message- From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 12:58 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Splitting up the band will just make it useless and interference free. -Matt Patrick Leary wrote: You make the mistake of assuming that I am talking about an unlicensed 3.65 product Charles. We would not likely build a UL version of all that. I am in complete agreement with you on 3.650 in terms of the end reality and utility of the band in a licensed versus unlicensed allocation. That is why I support essentially splitting the band. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Charles Wu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 10:46 AM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment Hi Patrick, But all the fancy schmancy technology you implement won't do @#$@ unless 3650 is licensed b/c interference from 20 other systems in the area (including several from our GPS-synced FM-based FSK friends) eats you for breakfast, lunch dinner =( -Charles --- CWLab Technology Architects http://www.cwlab.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:41 PM To: 'WISPA General List' Subject: RE: [WISPA] 3650 equipment A. More power Tom. B. Much more sophistication in the equipment yielding much higher spectral efficiency and system gain. Frequency plays a major role, but you need to understand that other factors are of almost similar levels of importance. For example, our 802.16e version of WiMAX uses SOFDMA with beam forming and 4th order diversity at the base station and MIMO with 6 antennae embedded in the self-install CPE with a SIM card. Couple that with higher power available in a licensed allocation and you get zero truck roll self-install CPE with no external antenna. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:23 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 equipment 3.5Ghz does, I find that hard to believe. 2.4Ghz couldn't do it, which is why we rely on 900Mhz. What makes 3.5Ghz appropriate for the task? With 3650 from what I understood, is only supposed to be allowed for PtP or mobile service only (not indoor) based on the high power levels allowed. Not sure whats at the other 3.5G ranges in US. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
