Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

No, but it has 8 wayside T1s.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Harris Constellation full hot standby with space diversity is spendy.
> Does any of the Trango stuff do OC-3 or DS-3 native?
> We cannot put SS7 A links on IP based technology.
>  - Original Message - 
>  From: Travis Johnson
>  To: WISPA General List
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:49 PM
>  Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
> today...
>
>
>  I believe all of Trango's licensed equipment (6ghz, 11ghz, 18ghz, 23ghz) 
> is the same price.
>
>  Travis
>  Microserv
>
>  Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
> Moreover, 6 GHz hardware is my most expensive stuff.  I can get 11 GHz
> dragonwave at a much lower cost and it will do more than 6 GHz for most
> applications.  Plus have all the perqs of license and exclusivity etc.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>  Tom,
>
> Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
> greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
> that and yes, that does make a big difference.
>
> While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never
> be
> allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only
> to
> have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes,
> a
> larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna,
> but
> the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth
> it.
> Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
> the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
> links are for the birds.
>
> The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
> talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw
> up
> even more RF space.  
>
> I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
> standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed
> links
> (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll
> pay
> more for a better product and more piece of mind.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you
> use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more
> frequency
> reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area
> and
>
> sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to
> use
> @ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile
> hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>
> Why is that?
> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed.
> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
> translating to larger deployment.
> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft
> dishes.
>
> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas?
> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference?
> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated?
> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller
> antenna
> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size
> antenna?
>
> The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused
> spectrum
> available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower
> or
> property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed.  6ft
> requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
> today...
>
>
>  As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller an

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

Yes, agreed, but maybe thats part of the misunderstanding

What guarantees that most Telcos E911 links are on 6Ghz and not on 11G or 
18Ghz?
What gaurantees that 6Ghz gets used for E911 instead of to transport DSL for 
all your residential subs?

Are providers really choosing 6Ghz first for those applications, over other 
bands?

I know some of those LECs, also don't hesitate to put those life critical 
links on 5.8Ghz unlicensed Tsunmai/Linx radios.

Every ATT tower in my town now has 11Ghz or 18Ghz 2ft antennas on their 
towers instead, so they can get teh faster speeds of 300mbps and greater 
that those spectrum ranges offer, beyond 6Ghz.
Towers are so close now, do they really need 30 mile 6Ghz range?

I understnad the concept of mission critical. I'd never suggest anything 
that would compromise that.

The relevent question is Does 6Ghz spectrum get left vacant in some 
areas because of the limits large antennas put on it?
If I'm wrong, and there is to much congestion, and/or the use is way up, 
well I'll bow down on my opinion.
But I'm not convinced of that, yet.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> So I guess satellite earth station minimum size requirements would really
> make a barrier to entry.
> I think we had to have a 21 foot dish minimum for an inmarsat uplink...
> By the same logic should I be pissed at that requirement?
>
> If you interfere with my 6 GHz system, E-911 links die, critical air 
> traffic
> control circuits die, people can die.
> Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a bit
> higher than that used to surf porn?
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>>
>> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due
>> to
>> the barrier to entry.
>>
>>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>>> the
>>> dishes.
>>
>> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers,
>> its
>> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
>> whether its approved.
>> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
>> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>>
>>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
>> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" 
>> the
>> actual towers.
>> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
>> antenna approval.
>>
>>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the
>>> larger
>>> dishes...
>>
>> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a
>> 4ft
>> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
>> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT
>> meet
>> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
>> "secondary basis".
>> .
>>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing
>>> the
>>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all
>> 5.x
>> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so
>> spectrum
>> is not wasted?
>> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>>
From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to
do
a
>>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended 
>>> up
>>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>>
>> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
>> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free 
>> spectrum,
>> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
>> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where 
>> near
>> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
>> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
>> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I
>> argue
>> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used.
>> FiberTower proved a "need", and prov

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[3-dB Networks]

Brad,

I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders
had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more than
once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm not
ever worried about an issue with it

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Tom, 

Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
that and yes, that does make a big difference.

While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be
allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to
have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, a
larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but
the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it.
Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
links are for the birds.

The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw up
even more RF space.

I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links
(Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll pay
more for a better product and more piece of mind.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you 
use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more frequency 
reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area and

sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use 
@ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile 
hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>
> Why is that?
> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed.
> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
> translating to larger deployment.
> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes.
>
> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas?
> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference?
> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated?
> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller 
> antenna
> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size
> antenna?
>
> The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused 
> spectrum
> available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower 
> or
> property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed.  6ft
> requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>> As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz
>> that is a real bad idea.  It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz freq
>> pair in some areas today.  Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean
>> even
>> fewer available freq pairs.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>> Brad
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>> Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas
>> to
>> be allowed on 6Ghz.
>> Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz.
>>
>> The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t
>> hold
>> for Whit

Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

[Gino Villarini]

Thanks,  The manual I have obn hand is a pre release one, lots of info
is missing... Got the latest available? 


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 Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:49 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Hello Gino,

You would really be doing yourself a favor to skim through the manual
and then start asking more specific questions, but here's a rundown from
memory on critical configuration points:

(1)  Enter configuration mode by typing con and enter password

(2)  odup on   this turns on power to the ODU

(3)  cabl x.xx x.xx x.xx   refer to manual for cable loss settings.
100' of
LMR400 would be: cabl 1.48 2.25 3.90

(4)  freq 19xxx   this sets the TX freq for the ODU.  Refer to your freq
coordination 

(5)  speed speed 3 qam16  would be used to
set
the radio to a 40MHz channel at QAM16.  refer to freq coordination.

(6)  default on   this sets default_opmode to "ON"

(7)  rat off   this turns auto rate shift off.  When first setting up
you
want this feature off.

(8)  odul on   this turns on the ODU LED RSSI Display to aide in
alignment

(9)  align on   this turns on alignment mode which increases the refresh
rate in which the RSSI is displayed.

(10)  target -35   this sets your target RSSI to -35   refer to your
freq
coordination for your expected RSSI reading

(11)  power 17   this sets your TX power to 17db  refer to your freq
coordination for your power setting


Do not leave the align on after you have completed alignment.
Do not leave the odul on after you have completed alignment.

The cable loss settings, target RSSI and power will all have an effect
on your RSSI, BER and MSE.  This is something that I have been speaking
with Trango about, but just takes time to learn and "feel" your way to
the ideal combination.

While the Giga radios are not a plug-in, point and walk away radio set
they have proven to be very reliable, flexible and live up to their
claims.  We have deployed several Giga radios (6GHz, 11GHz and 18GHz)
and have several more planned for the very near future.  The price vs.
feature set the Giga offers make it a hard radio to pass up.
Additionally, Trango support has been good.

Feel free to try me at the office if you have any questions.  You
probably will on your first one...  Once you have it up and
running you'll be very happy with the performance.

Best,


Brad


 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Im going to do this early am tomorrow,

Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? 


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 Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Don't bother with the web interface.  Skim through the manual and do all
configuration and management from the CLI.

As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the
ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support.

I can be available if you are still having difficulty.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks?
 
for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel
size)
 
I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ...
 

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 

 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

[Brad Belton]

On its way off list.

Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:08 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Thanks,  The manual I have obn hand is a pre release one, lots of info
is missing... Got the latest available? 


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 Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:49 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Hello Gino,

You would really be doing yourself a favor to skim through the manual
and then start asking more specific questions, but here's a rundown from
memory on critical configuration points:

(1)  Enter configuration mode by typing con and enter password

(2)  odup on   this turns on power to the ODU

(3)  cabl x.xx x.xx x.xx   refer to manual for cable loss settings.
100' of
LMR400 would be: cabl 1.48 2.25 3.90

(4)  freq 19xxx   this sets the TX freq for the ODU.  Refer to your freq
coordination 

(5)  speed speed 3 qam16  would be used to
set
the radio to a 40MHz channel at QAM16.  refer to freq coordination.

(6)  default on   this sets default_opmode to "ON"

(7)  rat off   this turns auto rate shift off.  When first setting up
you
want this feature off.

(8)  odul on   this turns on the ODU LED RSSI Display to aide in
alignment

(9)  align on   this turns on alignment mode which increases the refresh
rate in which the RSSI is displayed.

(10)  target -35   this sets your target RSSI to -35   refer to your
freq
coordination for your expected RSSI reading

(11)  power 17   this sets your TX power to 17db  refer to your freq
coordination for your power setting


Do not leave the align on after you have completed alignment.
Do not leave the odul on after you have completed alignment.

The cable loss settings, target RSSI and power will all have an effect
on your RSSI, BER and MSE.  This is something that I have been speaking
with Trango about, but just takes time to learn and "feel" your way to
the ideal combination.

While the Giga radios are not a plug-in, point and walk away radio set
they have proven to be very reliable, flexible and live up to their
claims.  We have deployed several Giga radios (6GHz, 11GHz and 18GHz)
and have several more planned for the very near future.  The price vs.
feature set the Giga offers make it a hard radio to pass up.
Additionally, Trango support has been good.

Feel free to try me at the office if you have any questions.  You
probably will on your first one...  Once you have it up and
running you'll be very happy with the performance.

Best,


Brad


 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 10:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Im going to do this early am tomorrow,

Could you send me a checklist of items to configure? 


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 Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 11:59 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

Don't bother with the web interface.  Skim through the manual and do all
configuration and management from the CLI.

As for the not accepting the freq/channel...you either don't have the
ODU powered up or you are trying to set a freq the ODU doesn't support.

I can be available if you are still having difficulty.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gino Villarini
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Trango Giga Link provisioning setup

anyone can provide me with a list of basic setup for the Gigalinks?
 
for some reason its not accpeting my rf configuration ( freq and channel
size)
 
I also just discovered i needed to turn on the odu via CLI ...
 

Gino A. Villarini
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp. 
tel  787.273.4143   fax   787.273.4145 

 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

--

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Brad Belton]

Hello Daniel,

A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking
of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.

With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...

Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
once or twice?  

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Brad,

I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders
had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more than
once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm not
ever worried about an issue with it

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Tom, 

Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
that and yes, that does make a big difference.

While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be
allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to
have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, a
larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but
the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it.
Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
links are for the birds.

The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw up
even more RF space.

I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links
(Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll pay
more for a better product and more piece of mind.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you 
use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more frequency 
reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area and

sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use 
@ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile 
hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>
> Why is that?
> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed.
> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
> translating to larger deployment.
> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes.
>
> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas?
> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference?
> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated?
> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller 
> antenna
> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size
> antenna?
>
> The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused 
> spectrum
> available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower 
> or
> property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed.  6ft
> requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>> As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' 

Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email

[Frank Muto]

Likewise. When we shut down our dial-up in 2002, we kept the mail service going 
with the domain our users had for almost 5 
years, charging $60 annually, including Postini. We also do a good amount of 
backup email services all completely outsourced 
from multiple providers.




Frank Muto
www.SecureEmailPlus.com





- Original Message - 
From: "Scottie Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email


> Easiest $5/mth I have ever made. We have dial-up customers that have switched 
> to other companies DSL that can not get our 
> wireless ad keep thier email with us for $60/year. I have one customer that 
> has done it for over 3 years now.
>
> Scottie
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: WISPA General List 
> Date:  Wed, 5 Nov 2008 20:18:24 -0700
>
>>I think we keep it alive for $5/month.
>>
>>- Original Message - 
>>From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: "WISPA General List" 
>>Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM
>>Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
>>
>>
>>> OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do.
>>> I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the AT&T DSL
>>> giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small
>>> monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he
>>> gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying
>>> leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about
>>> telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email
>>> accounts. How do you handle this?
>>> -RickG




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[3-dB Networks]

Brad,

Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I
guess it could become more of an issue.

I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they
told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a
secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Hello Daniel,

A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking
of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.

With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...

Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
once or twice?  

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Brad,

I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders
had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more than
once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm not
ever worried about an issue with it

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Tom, 

Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
that and yes, that does make a big difference.

While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be
allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to
have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, a
larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but
the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it.
Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
links are for the birds.

The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw up
even more RF space.

I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links
(Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll pay
more for a better product and more piece of mind.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you 
use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more frequency 
reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area and

sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use 
@ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile 
hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>
> Why is that?
> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed.
> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
> translating to larger deployment.
> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft dishes.
>
> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas?
> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference?
> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated?
> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller 
> antenna
> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size
> antenna?
>
> The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused 
> spectrum
> availabl

Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage

[Mike Hammett]

Oh, I don't argue against the fact that there is signal present and can 
interfere with other systems beyond what I consider usable.  I was just 
saying I don't think we're going to be able to efficiently have systems that 
go 50 miles.


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



--
From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:20 PM
To: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage

> That's my point, the noise will be much lower in these bands if things are
> deployed in a sane way. Wimax gear has receive sensitivity in the -93 
> to -98
> range and from the reports I have heard, works very well at those levels.
> While a WISP may be trying to set a network up for max modulation, the FCC
> will look at the contour a whitespace station creates in a much different
> way. It will be based on the RF energy it creates, not the signal margin
> above the receiver threshold needed to achieve the better modulation rate.
> If you map a realistic footprint based on  a signal level down as low
> as -98, that might be closer to the contour they will create in their
> geolocation database. This contour will be the one they use to see if you
> will encroach on any TV contour or other protected/semi protected users of
> the spectrum. The WISP operator will not get to determine the contour 
> limits
> based on their own desired modulation rate. I was saying that you should 
> be
> able to use the -90 number in your mapping to get a more realistic sense 
> of
> where the signal will be going and what size polygon you might have to 
> deal
> with as you register it in a geolocation database.
>
> Remember, even though you may not agree that a particular signal level is
> adequate for your purposes at a certain level, the signal that still 
> remains
> on the air at the lower levels, will be an interfering/undesired signal to
> all other systems. The FCC is charged with managing the total signal
> emitted, it's affects over distance, and the other users of the spectrum.
> They have the big picture to look at, while as a WISP it can be easy to
> overlook those other factors. I am not sure what the signal level will be
> that the FCC determines must be protected for TV receivers, but whatever
> that number is you would be wise to do RF plots that show signal down to
> that level. It may not be useable as a data network but it will certainly 
> be
> able to bother TV reception at that level. WISP use of whitespaces will be 
> a
> secondary use to LICENSED users of the band. And homeowners with off air 
> TV
> reception will be considered licensed in this case. That is a different
> mindset from what most are used to. It will create the need for different
> thinking when planning a network. This is not bad news, just a new and
> different way to think about your RF planning.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:41 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
>
>
>> I would say that -90 should be a safe signal
>> level to use and still have good modulation rates.
>
> I'm a little confused on that statement.
>
> With our Aperto live testing a few years back (pre-wimax), the best
> modulation we could get was qam16 at the -85 levels.
> And that was before considering the 25db SNR required above the noise. 
> What
> good is sensitivity, if the noise ends up being higher than the 
> sensitivity?
>
> Sure TV broadcasters shot for -120, but thats one direction broadcasting,
> with no expense cut for technology.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Theoretical TVWS coverage
>
>
>>
>> Obviously we are still speculating here because the rules are certainly
>> not
>> clear. With technology development and the results I am hearing from 
>> those
>> who are using WiMax equipment, I would say that -90 should be a safe
>> signal
>> level to use and still have good modulation rates. To assume TVWS will
>> always get full modulation and then try to also claim that it is the most
>> cost affective way to reach the low population density areas will be
>> difficult. Site footprints have to be looked at lowest modulation rates
>> because that RF signal is still out there. It is important to look at how
>> far that signal will still be traveling even though you can't achieve 
>> full
>> rates. The transmitted carrier will still be out there as part of the
>> contour for your base and must be considered in the process of
>> "registration". Your footprint

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Mike Hammett]

I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck 
refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link, 
and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch 
more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30 
MHz, end of story.

Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but 
still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a 
few years.


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



--
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

>
>
>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>
> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due 
> to
> the barrier to entry.
>
>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>> the
>> dishes.
>
> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, 
> its
> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
> whether its approved.
> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>
>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>
>
> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" the
> actual towers.
> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
> antenna approval.
>
>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the 
>> larger
>> dishes...
>
> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 
> 4ft
> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT 
> meet
> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
> "secondary basis".
> .
>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing 
>> the
>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 
> 5.x
> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so 
> spectrum
> is not wasted?
> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>
>>>From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to 
>>>do
>>>a
>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up
>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>
> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum,
> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near
> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my 
> opinion.
>
> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I 
> argue
> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used.
> FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in 
> place.
> I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was
> promised when it was licesned to the licensee.
> But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a 
> smaller
> antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum.
>
> I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes.  I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 
> 4ft
> dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum
> preservation conscious.
> There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of 4ft
> versus 6ft dishes.  Allowing 4ft, would also put the spectrum within the
> grasp of many many needy WISPs.
>
> What harms the industry more? Fibertowers asking for prime PtMP Whitespace
> spectrum for rural backhaul at 25 degree beamwidths minimum? or Shrinking
> the 6ghz antenna size to 3-4ft and going from a 1deg to 2 degree 
> beamwidth?
>
> Tom DeReggi
>
>> Daniel White
>> 3-dB Networks
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>>
>> Why is that?
>> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Chuck McCown - 3]

The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum.  It is 
generally big time QAM with tons of margin.  Like 40 dB+ of margin.  Part 90 
and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before 
microprocessors.  So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game there. 
It is all about availability and fading.  We try to design for 99.999% 
availability using the old AT&T long haul spec.  With the new digital radios 
with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it.

- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


>I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck
> refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed 
> link,
> and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole 
> bunch
> more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in 
> 30
> MHz, end of story.
>
> Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, 
> but
> still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a
> few years.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>>
>>
>>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>>
>> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due
>> to
>> the barrier to entry.
>>
>>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>>> the
>>> dishes.
>>
>> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers,
>> its
>> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
>> whether its approved.
>> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
>> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>>
>>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
>> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" 
>> the
>> actual towers.
>> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
>> antenna approval.
>>
>>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the
>>> larger
>>> dishes...
>>
>> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a
>> 4ft
>> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
>> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT
>> meet
>> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
>> "secondary basis".
>> .
>>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing
>>> the
>>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all
>> 5.x
>> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so
>> spectrum
>> is not wasted?
>> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>>
From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to
do
a
>>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended 
>>> up
>>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>>
>> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
>> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free 
>> spectrum,
>> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
>> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where 
>> near
>> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
>> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
>> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I
>> argue
>> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used.
>> FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in
>> place.
>> I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it 
>> was
>> promised when it was licesned to the licensee.
>> But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a
>> smaller
>> antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum.
>>
>> I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes.  I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes.
>> 4ft
>> dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum
>> preserv

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Marlon K. Schafer]

I've always liked the idea of allowing smaller antennas on systems that have 
ATPC.  That would allow for much smaller fade margins.  By using lower power 
levels I think that there would be even less stray signal than there is with 
6' dishes.  Especially on the back side of the links.
marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you
> use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more 
> frequency
> reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area 
> and
> sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to 
> use
> @ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile
> hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>>
>> Why is that?
>> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed.
>> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
>> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
>> translating to larger deployment.
>> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft 
>> dishes.
>>
>> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas?
>> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference?
>> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated?
>> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller
>> antenna
>> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size
>> antenna?
>>
>> The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused
>> spectrum
>> available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower
>> or
>> property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed.  6ft
>> requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>>
>>> As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 6GHz
>>> that is a real bad idea.  It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz 
>>> freq
>>> pair in some areas today.  Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean
>>> even
>>> fewer available freq pairs.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>> Brad
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>> Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
>>> today...
>>>
>>> Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller antennas
>>> to
>>> be allowed on 6Ghz.
>>> Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz.
>>>
>>> The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t
>>> hold
>>> for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger..
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
>>> today...
>>>
>>>
I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP...  aren't
there
 already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that 
 have
 quite some range to them?


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



 --
 From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
 today...

> Butch,
>
>> Then, the "music" turned to "noise"
>
> You hit the nail right on the head, with your comment.
>
> They talked up broadband, but then gave us Personal portable instead,
> and
> said, "but we really need to consider PTP, CLECs and Carriers are also
> a
> very important part of broadband delivery"..
>
> The problem was not the WISPA messengers or message, Jack, Steve and
> FCC
> committee did an awesome job, about as good as humanly possible. But
> the
> commiss

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Marlon K. Schafer]

roflol

Too true.

Have you ever offered to sell one of them a T-1 instead of a best effort DSL 
typer service?

Any takers?

Nope.  None here either.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:10 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008, Chuck McCown - 3 wrote:
>
>>Shouldn't the standard for critical life safety infrastructure be a
>>bit higher than that used to surf porn?
>
> If you've ever manned the phones during an outage, you'd understand
> that internet access IS that critical.  Either a customer is paying
> $29.95/month for the link and is "losing thousands of dollars per
> day while the internet is down" or things even worse are happening.
> :-)
>
> -- 
> 
> * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation*
> * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering*
> * http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member*
> * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * Wired or Wireless Networks*
> 
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Brad Belton]

Hello Mike,

Apples and oranges.  You cannot compare UL "best effort" gear to carrier
class licensed gear.  Two different worlds...both clearly have their place.
Chuck touches on this in another post.

While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by
looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in
availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link.  That's assuming the Orthogon
can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX.

Is this déjà vu?  Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs.
licensed?

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck 
refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link,

and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch

more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30

MHz, end of story.

Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but 
still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a 
few years.


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



--
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

>
>
>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>
> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due 
> to
> the barrier to entry.
>
>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>> the
>> dishes.
>
> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, 
> its
> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
> whether its approved.
> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>
>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>
>
> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" the
> actual towers.
> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
> antenna approval.
>
>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the 
>> larger
>> dishes...
>
> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 
> 4ft
> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT 
> meet
> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
> "secondary basis".
> .
>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing 
>> the
>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 
> 5.x
> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so 
> spectrum
> is not wasted?
> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>
>>>From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to 
>>>do
>>>a
>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up
>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>
> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum,
> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near
> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my 
> opinion.
>
> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I 
> argue
> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used.
> FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in 
> place.
> I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was
> promised when it was licesned to the licensee.
> But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a 
> smaller
> antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum.
>
> I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes.  I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes. 
> 4ft
> dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum
> preservation conscious.
> There is a huge difference between cosmetic and windload limits of

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Brad Belton]

Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary
licenses.  Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an
undesirable position at some time in the future?  The fewer surprises the
better, IMO.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Brad,

Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I
guess it could become more of an issue.

I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they
told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a
secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Hello Daniel,

A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking
of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.

With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...

Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
once or twice?  

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Brad,

I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders
had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more than
once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm not
ever worried about an issue with it

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Tom, 

Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
that and yes, that does make a big difference.

While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be
allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to
have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, a
larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but
the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it.
Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
links are for the birds.

The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw up
even more RF space.

I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links
(Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll pay
more for a better product and more piece of mind.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you 
use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more frequency 
reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area and

sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to use 
@ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile 
hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>
> Why is that?
> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft antennas.allowed.
> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
> translating to larger deployment.
> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8G

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[lakeland]

Anyone want to buy 13 bad Orthogon power supplies???  ;-)

Can't compare the two. Orthogon is sales bandwidth. Licensed is true bandwidth

-B- 
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 09:41:59 
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


Hello Mike,

Apples and oranges.  You cannot compare UL "best effort" gear to carrier
class licensed gear.  Two different worlds...both clearly have their place.
Chuck touches on this in another post.

While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by
looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in
availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link.  That's assuming the Orthogon
can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX.

Is this déjà vu?  Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs.
licensed?

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck 
refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed link,

and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole bunch

more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in 30

MHz, end of story.

Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, but 
still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a 
few years.


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



--
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

>
>
>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>
> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due 
> to
> the barrier to entry.
>
>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>> the
>> dishes.
>
> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers, 
> its
> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
> whether its approved.
> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>
>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>
>
> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" the
> actual towers.
> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
> antenna approval.
>
>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the 
>> larger
>> dishes...
>
> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a 
> 4ft
> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT 
> meet
> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
> "secondary basis".
> .
>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing 
>> the
>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>
> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all 
> 5.x
> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so 
> spectrum
> is not wasted?
> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>
>>>From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to 
>>>do
>>>a
>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended up
>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>
> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free spectrum,
> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where near
> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my 
> opinion.
>
> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I 
> argue
> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used.
> FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in 
> place.
> I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it was
> promised when it was licesned to the licensee.
> But I see no r

Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email

[RickG]

We do that as well.
-RickG

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Blair Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a rule, we give leaving residentials 30 days on their email.
>
> We often get them back within that time.
>
> RickG wrote:
>
> OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do.
> I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the AT&T DSL
> giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small
> monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he
> gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying
> leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about
> telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email
> accounts. How do you handle this?
> -RickG
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers

[Matt]

> Nothing, if you own the fiber.

I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate?

Matt

>>> We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP.  So no latency to speak
>>> of
>>> there.
>>> >From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get.
>>
>> Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site.  How much does that
>> cost?



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email

[RickG]

As a follow up. I have decided to charge him $5/month per email as
long as it is prepaid for the length of time he wants to keep it.
Thanks to all for your suggestions. It was very helpful!
-RickG


On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Josh Luthman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally without an internet package I'd do 10 or 15
>
> On 11/6/08, Jerry Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> $5/month per address
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> __
>> Jerry Richardson
>> airCloud Communications
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 3
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:18 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
>>
>> I think we keep it alive for $5/month.
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "RickG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 PM
>> Subject: [WISPA] cancelled customer email
>>
>>
>>> OK guys. I've never had this happen before so I'm not usre what to do.
>>> I've got a long time customer that has fallen for the AT&T DSL
>>> giveaway package and is switching. He asked if he could pay a small
>>> monthly rate to keep his email addresses for a few months until he
>>> gets the word out. My first reaction is to tell him to take a flying
>>> leap. After some thought, I want to be reasonable. I've thought about
>>> telling him he can do so with a low end plan. We dont sell email
>>> accounts. How do you handle this?
>>> -RickG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>> 
>> 
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> --- Henry Spencer
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Mike Hammett]

I don't understand why ATPC isn't a regulatory requirement for all two-way 
communications.  It just makes sense.


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



--
From: "Marlon K. Schafer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:25 AM
To: "WISPA General List" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

> I've always liked the idea of allowing smaller antennas on systems that 
> have
> ATPC.  That would allow for much smaller fade margins.  By using lower 
> power
> levels I think that there would be even less stray signal than there is 
> with
> 6' dishes.  Especially on the back side of the links.
> marlon
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown - 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>> There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you
>> use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more
>> frequency
>> reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area
>> and
>> sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair of 50 MHz channels to
>> use
>> @ 6 GHz.  The propagation characteristics are much better for our 60 mile
>> hops.  Not sure we could even get it to work at 18 GHz, possibly 11.
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>>
>>> Ok, that opens up a useful conversation.
>>>
>>> Why is that?
>>> 11Ghz and 18Ghz have plenty of free channels with 2-4ft 
>>> antennas.allowed.
>>> I don't see anywhere near as many 6ft antennas hanging on towers as I do
>>> 2-4ft antennas, inferring that the concept of larger antenna is not
>>> translating to larger deployment.
>>> I get a tremendous amount of re-use with 5.8Ghz unlicensed and 2ft
>>> dishes.
>>>
>>> So why is the same not achievalbe with 6Ghz, if allowed a 3ft antennas?
>>> Is the 1 degree really going to make that much of a difference?
>>> Is 6 Mhz really that much more deployed and saturated?
>>> And why not do it under the same premise as 11Ghz, where the smaller
>>> antenna
>>> is "secondary" and must defer to the primary lciesne of the larger size
>>> antenna?
>>>
>>> The fact is 6Ghz equipment is on the shelf, and there is unused
>>> spectrum
>>> available, I'd love to be able to use it. I don;t think I have one tower
>>> or
>>> property owner that would allow a 6ft antenna to be installed.  6ft
>>> requirement is effectively creating a huge barrier to entry.
>>>
>>> Tom DeReggi
>>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>>
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "'WISPA General List'" 
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 4:43 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
>>> today...
>>>
>>>
 As much as I'd love to be able to use smaller antennas than 6' with 
 6GHz
 that is a real bad idea.  It's hard enough finding an available 6GHz
 freq
 pair in some areas today.  Allowing smaller antennas would likely mean
 even
 fewer available freq pairs.

 Best,


 Brad

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
 Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 3:06 PM
 To: WISPA General List
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
 today...

 Yes. A bettter use of time and spectrum is to fight for smaller 
 antennas
 to
 be allowed on 6Ghz.
 Sorta like what was jsut done to 11Ghz.

 The 6ft requirement is a preventer for many. But that argument doesn;t
 hold
 for Whitespace as Whitespace antennas would be bigger..

 Tom DeReggi
 RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
 IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


 - Original Message - 
 From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:12 AM
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
 today...


>I can't understand why there's all this discussion of PtP...  aren't
>there
> already MANY bands established for PtP, including some (6 GHz) that
> have
> quite some range to them?
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 9:27 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Mike Hammett]

I'm not saying use a 6 GHz licensed radio on an Orthogon, but make some 
steps towards improving spectral efficiency.  For the cost of licensed 
radios, you'd think they'd put some money into R&D.


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



--
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:41 AM
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

> Hello Mike,
>
> Apples and oranges.  You cannot compare UL "best effort" gear to carrier
> class licensed gear.  Two different worlds...both clearly have their 
> place.
> Chuck touches on this in another post.
>
> While I've never personally deployed an Orthogon radio (only stood by
> looking over another's shoulder) I'm certain it will not compare in
> availability at 300Mbps to a licensed link.  That's assuming the Orthogon
> can actually even produce 300Mbps FDX.
>
> Is this déjà vu?  Haven't we already gone down this road with UL vs.
> licensed?
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Mike Hammett
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:04 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck
> refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed 
> link,
>
> and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole 
> bunch
>
> more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in 
> 30
>
> MHz, end of story.
>
> Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, 
> but
> still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a
> few years.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>>
>>
>>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>>
>> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due
>> to
>> the barrier to entry.
>>
>>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>>> the
>>> dishes.
>>
>> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers,
>> its
>> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
>> whether its approved.
>> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
>> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>>
>>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
>> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" 
>> the
>> actual towers.
>> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
>> antenna approval.
>>
>>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the
>>> larger
>>> dishes...
>>
>> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a
>> 4ft
>> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
>> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT
>> meet
>> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
>> "secondary basis".
>> .
>>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing
>>> the
>>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all
>> 5.x
>> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so
>> spectrum
>> is not wasted?
>> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>>
From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to
do
a
>>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended 
>>> up
>>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>>
>> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
>> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free 
>> spectrum,
>> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
>> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where 
>> near
>> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
>> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
>> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the 

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

Note on secondary license

Its not exactly like it sounds.
The secondary license just means there are different threshhold values of 
hearing/transmitting interference that need to be accommodated or prevented.
These values are still many times better than what someone might have with 
unlicensed.
Its not as scary a proposition, once you learn exactly how the secondary 
license works.
It does not necessarilly mean that you are in risk to "de-install" your 
existing link.
A solution could end up being, dropping power a slight bit, and dropping the 
modulation a slight bit to accommodate.
I don't fully understand the difference between the primary and secondary 
license well enough to explain it.
I just know that when it was explained to me, it cleared up misconception I 
had, and changed my view in favor that it was not a risky thing.

One of the things to remember is energy is the same amount of energy wether 
it transmits long range in a narrow beam or shorter range in a wider beam.
As long as there are defined constants, Widerbeams don't necessarilly mean 
that it will cause more interference, when the antenna gain reduces. It 
depends on where the other links are in the region that you are Freq 
coordinating for.

Its also possible rules could be made to favor the primary more to reduce 
risk, if ^ghz was also allowed for smaller antennas. For example, similar to 
the concept of the 3 to 1 rule of 2.4Ghz.

On the more urban east coast where there is high rain zones, 11Ghz starts 
loosing 5-9s at about 11miles or so. The only viable purpose for 6Ghz isn't 
just 20-40 mile links. It would be very useful to have for 12-20 miles links 
at 5-9s, which 6Ghz can offer at licensed.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Hello Daniel,
>
> A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are 
> speaking
> of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
> long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.
>
> With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
> long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...
>
> Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
> once or twice?
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license 
> holders
> had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more 
> than
> once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
>
> I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
> 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm 
> not
> ever worried about an issue with it
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Tom,
>
> Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
> greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
> that and yes, that does make a big difference.
>
> While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never 
> be
> allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only 
> to
> have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, 
> a
> larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, 
> but
> the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth 
> it.
> Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
> the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
> links are for the birds.
>
> The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
> talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw 
> up
> even more RF space.  
>
> I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
> standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed 
> links
> (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll 
> pay
> more for a better product and more piece of mind.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISP

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

You are forgetting that the licensed links are "Full Duplex" delivering 
twice the capacity.
And you can't forget that the Orthogon often has to use "two polarities" to 
get the speed/quality.

The newer Licensed gear can do 256QAM effectively, and get 380mbps on that 
50mhz channel. (Trango Apex or Dragonwave).

Sure 512QAM is a bit more efficient, but Licensed will get there to, I'm 
sure, if they haven't already..

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


>I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck
> refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed 
> link,
> and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole 
> bunch
> more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in 
> 30
> MHz, end of story.
>
> Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear, 
> but
> still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for a
> few years.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>>
>>
>>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>>
>> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due
>> to
>> the barrier to entry.
>>
>>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
>>> the
>>> dishes.
>>
>> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers,
>> its
>> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
>> whether its approved.
>> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
>> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>>
>>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>>
>>
>> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, that
>> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own" 
>> the
>> actual towers.
>> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
>> antenna approval.
>>
>>> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
>>> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the
>>> larger
>>> dishes...
>>
>> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a
>> 4ft
>> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
>> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT
>> meet
>> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
>> "secondary basis".
>> .
>>> so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
>>> 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing
>>> the
>>> rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
>>> spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all
>> 5.x
>> Ghz unlicensed PtP radios should be required to use 6ft dishes, so
>> spectrum
>> is not wasted?
>> What makes 6Ghz more special than 5.xGhz?
>>
From the WISP perspective though, 6GHz is out of range.  Mesa needed to
do
a
>>> few links, but couldn't handle the 6 foot dish requirement so we ended 
>>> up
>>> not deploying the links or doing smaller hops.
>>
>> Yep, but should it be? The fact that its hard to find a free channel is
>> irrelevent. The fact is there are many areas where there is free 
>> spectrum,
>> and its a waste to horde that spectrum unnecessarilly.
>> These antenna limits were made YEARS ago when technology was no where 
>> near
>> as advanced. Its time to use higher modulations, smaller channels, lower
>> power, and better sensitivity, to allow more use of the band in my
>> opinion.
>>
>> I agree this spectrum is set aside for Licensed interference-free PTP
>> backhaul spectrum, so Providers can rely on it for the prupose. But I
>> argue
>> whether it is trully saturated, and most efficiently used.
>> FiberTower proved a "need", and proved "no harm" to existing links in
>> place.
>> I believe that any link deploed today, deserves the protection that it 
>> was
>> promised when it was licesned to the licensee.
>> But I see no reason that new Licensee shouldn't be allowed to have a
>> smaller
>> antenna, where its feasible, to enable "better use" of vacant spectrum.
>>
>> I'm in no way suggesting small 1ft dishes.  I'm suggesting 3-4ft dishes.
>> 4ft
>> dishes still have very narrow beamwidths at 6Ghz, and very spectrum
>> preservation conscious.
>> There i

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty.

Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible links, 
cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still 
maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology.
Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same number 
of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum becomes 
available.

It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider to 
eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason that 
any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient 
radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. Anything 
else, is spectrum hording.  Any new applicant should also have the right to 
pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange to 
free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link.

Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to 
pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a 
better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum.  It is
> generally big time QAM with tons of margin.  Like 40 dB+ of margin.  Part 
> 90
> and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back before
> microprocessors.  So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game 
> there.
> It is all about availability and fading.  We try to design for 99.999%
> availability using the old AT&T long haul spec.  With the new digital 
> radios
> with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>>I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck
>> refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed
>> link,
>> and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole
>> bunch
>> more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit in
>> 30
>> MHz, end of story.
>>
>> Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear,
>> but
>> still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for 
>> a
>> few years.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>>>
>>>
 Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>>>
>>> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum due
>>> to
>>> the barrier to entry.
>>>
 Telco's (like Chuck) use
 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to support
 the
 dishes.
>>>
>>> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build towers,
>>> its
>>> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
>>> whether its approved.
>>> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get the
>>> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>>>
 Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?

>>>
>>> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum, 
>>> that
>>> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own"
>>> the
>>> actual towers.
>>> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
>>> antenna approval.
>>>
 I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
 dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the
 larger
 dishes...
>>>
>>> Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a
>>> 4ft
>>> dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
>>> However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT
>>> meet
>>> the same radiating charateristic were still allowed approval, on a
>>> "secondary basis".
>>> .
 so if a 4' 6GHz dish can meet the same side lobe requirements of a
 6ft dish... then I see the reasoning to relax the rules.  But relaxing
 the
 rules so more people can deploy the gear at the cost of polluting the
 spectrum more doesn't make sense to me.
>>>
>>> Ok, lets turn that logic around, to be fair. So you are saying that all

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

Actually.

when comparing 5.x UL to 6G licensed, there is no functional difference in 
technology.
There is NO reason a 6ghz radio can't be made as efficient as a Orthogon 
5.x.

Licensed just gives protection from interference at very low noise 
threshhold.
It does not change the characteristics of the RF technology.
That same engineering can be done with a UL Orthogon, without the 
"protection".
Its should be even more feasible to meet Orthogon specs considering that the 
protection is granted, to be allowed the link margins that will survive the 
deployment of the innovations.

There is absolutely no arguement that holds water to suggest that a Lciensed 
Link needs to be less efficient. The whole purpose of Licensed is having 
protection to be most efficient.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary
> licenses.  Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an
> undesirable position at some time in the future?  The fewer surprises the
> better, IMO.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I
> guess it could become more of an issue.
>
> I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they
> told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a
> secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are 
> speaking
> of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
> long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.
>
> With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
> long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...
>
> Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
> once or twice?
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license 
> holders
> had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more 
> than
> once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
>
> I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
> 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm 
> not
> ever worried about an issue with it
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Tom,
>
> Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
> greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
> that and yes, that does make a big difference.
>
> While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never 
> be
> allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only 
> to
> have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, 
> a
> larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, 
> but
> the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth 
> it.
> Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
> the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
> links are for the birds.
>
> The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
> talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw 
> up
> even more RF space.  
>
> I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
> standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed 
> links
> (Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll 
> pay
> more for a better product and more piece of mind.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>

Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers

[Chuck McCown]

Are you wanting to have a dissertation of FCC part 36 separations and 
settlements and the uniform system of accounts?
Or perhaps NECA Tariff 5?

My answer was a philosophical answer.
The making of the sausage is ugly.  But at the end of the day, all accounts 
are settled.

- Original Message - 
From: "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers


>> Nothing, if you own the fiber.
>
> I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate?
>
> Matt
>
 We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP.  So no latency to speak
 of
 there.
 >From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get.
>>>
>>> Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site.  How much does 
>>> that
>>> cost?
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Chuck McCown]

I didn't write the book.
I read it.

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty.
>
> Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible 
> links,
> cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still
> maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology.
> Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same 
> number
> of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum 
> becomes
> available.
>
> It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider 
> to
> eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason 
> that
> any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient
> radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. Anything
> else, is spectrum hording.  Any new applicant should also have the right 
> to
> pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange 
> to
> free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link.
>
> Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to
> pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a
> better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there.
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>> The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum.  It is
>> generally big time QAM with tons of margin.  Like 40 dB+ of margin.  Part
>> 90
>> and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back 
>> before
>> microprocessors.  So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game
>> there.
>> It is all about availability and fading.  We try to design for 99.999%
>> availability using the old AT&T long haul spec.  With the new digital
>> radios
>> with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it.
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>>
>>>I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit.  Chuck
>>> refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed
>>> link,
>>> and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole
>>> bunch
>>> more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit 
>>> in
>>> 30
>>> MHz, end of story.
>>>
>>> Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear,
>>> but
>>> still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there for
>>> a
>>> few years.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
>>> today...
>>>


> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?

 No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum 
 due
 to
 the barrier to entry.

> Telco's (like Chuck) use
> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to 
> support
> the
> dishes.

 Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build 
 towers,
 its
 $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
 whether its approved.
 Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get 
 the
 right to build a tower, IF it occurs.

> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>

 Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum,
 that
 should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own"
 the
 actual towers.
 It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 tower, just to get an
 antenna approval.

> I know the reason the 11GHz rules were relaxed was because the smaller
> dishes were able to come close to the side lobe requirements of the
> larger
> dishes...

 Nope, not exactly. One specific 2.5Ft model met the characteristic of a
 4ft
 dish so it was allowed to be used for a "primary" license.
 However, the battle Fibertower won was that 1ft&2ft dishes that did NOT
 meet
 the same r

Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers

[Travis Johnson]

Separate pockets, same pair of pants. 

Travis
Microserv

Matt wrote:

  
Nothing, if you own the fiber.

  
  
I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate?

Matt

  
  

  
We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP.  So no latency to speak
of
there.
>From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get.

  
  Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site.  How much does that
cost?
  

  
  


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] OT election results

[Marlon K. Schafer]

Hi All,

Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that 
most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.

Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
us?

marlon




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Charles Wyble]

I'm glad the whitespace spectrum was approved.

I hear tell our new fearless leader wants to appoint a CIO for the 
country. That undoubtedly means even more regulation, process and red 
tape. Just read any large companies CIO blog. Ugh.

I'm hoping that WISPs will be able to bid on contracts for networks, as 
the new economy and all it's fixing the poverty line will probably 
include digital divide provisions.

Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that 
> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
> us?
>
> marlon
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Brad Belton]

Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up.  Hope everyone
enjoys it.

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] OT election results

Hi All,

Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that

most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.

Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
us?

marlon





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Charles Wyble]

Brad,

You are 100% correct. Taxes up.

Markets haven't reacted well at all to the choice for our new leader. 
Not at all.

Brad Belton wrote:
> Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up.  Hope everyone
> enjoys it.
>
> Brad
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] OT election results
>
> Hi All,
>
> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that
>
> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
> us?
>
> marlon
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Travis Johnson]

Our taxes may go up, but we get free gas and don't have to pay our 
mortgage payments any more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

I wonder what's going to happen when people come back to the real world 
and realize Obama isn't going to pay their mortgages for them?

Travis
Microserv

Brad Belton wrote:
> Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up.  Hope everyone
> enjoys it.
>
> Brad
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] OT election results
>
> Hi All,
>
> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that
>
> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
> us?
>
> marlon
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

[WISPA] 1.9ghz?

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz???

Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the "interference free cordless 
frequency".

Travis
Microserv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Jack Unger]

I agree 100% (or even 110%)  That is O.T.

This clearly is NOT a list for political discussions but I can send you 
a fine list of political sites where politics are discussed 24/7.


Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that 
> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
> us?
>
> marlon
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
Read my new EBook-"Minimize Your Microwave Energy Exposure from Cellphones" 
http://www.lulu.com/content/4368917
FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile 
Phone 818-227-4220  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?

[Chuck McCown]

Yep, pretty cool huh?
We recommend only DECT 6.0 and that is the only thing we stock in our store.
- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?


> Hi,
>
> I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz???
>
> Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the "interference free cordless
> frequency".
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?

[Josh Luthman]

I believe Plantroincs uses 1.9ghz too

On 11/6/08, Chuck McCown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, pretty cool huh?
> We recommend only DECT 6.0 and that is the only thing we stock in our store.
> - Original Message -
> From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List"
> 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:10 PM
> Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz???
>>
>> Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the "interference free cordless
>> frequency".
>>
>> Travis
>> Microserv
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Josh Luthman
Office: 937-552-2340
Direct: 937-552-2343
1100 Wayne St
Suite 1337
Troy, OH 45373

Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
--- Henry Spencer



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Butch Evans]

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Travis Johnson wrote:

>Our taxes may go up, but we get free gas and don't have to pay our 
>mortgage payments any more

Not sure where the list daddy is, but this needs to go to another 
list.  It doesn't matter how we feel about the election (I have my 
opinions, too, and they're as strong as you all), but this is not 
the right place to discuss.  You can discuss this on the WISPA-Chat 
list if you like. http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/chat

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * Wired or Wireless Networks   *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?

[Brad Belton]

Yes, the DECT phones are great!  I've had a Uniden set for about a year or
more.  I think I've got five or six handsets throughout the house.  They are
a bit older in design (no keypad backlight), but the newer styles are pretty
slick.

Definitely go for DECT when it comes to cordless phones IMO.

Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?

Hi,

I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz???

Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the "interference free cordless 
frequency".

Travis
Microserv




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Charles Wyble]

Jack Unger wrote:
> I agree 100% (or even 110%)  That is O.T.
>
> This clearly is NOT a list for political discussions but I can send you 
> a fine list of political sites where politics are discussed 24/7.
>   

Certainly. Yet a lot of the things on this list go off in various 
tangents. :)

We're just short cutting the process! LOL.

However in all seriousness you are correct.
>
> Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
>   
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing that 
>> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for 
>> us?
>>
>> marlon
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

fair enough.

I'm trying to "re-write it"

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Chuck McCown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


>I didn't write the book.
> I read it.
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List" 
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
>
>> Allthough I understand your conservative concept for reliabilty.
>>
>> Isn't it a bit selfish? You could allow double the number of possible
>> links,
>> cutting your channel size in have, using higher modulation, and still
>> maintain 5-9reliabilty, if you switched to new technology.
>> Making that change, would also allow 3ft dishes, with about the same
>> number
>> of non-interfering links capable as today, since double the spectrum
>> becomes
>> available.
>>
>> It brings me to my original point. Maybe its not fair to ask the provider
>> to
>> eat the cost to replace pre-existing equipment. But there is no reason
>> that
>> any new installations souldn't be incouraged to use the most efficient
>> radios, that are both less expensive and higher performing today. 
>> Anything
>> else, is spectrum hording.  Any new applicant should also have the right
>> to
>> pay the ocst to replace the pre-existing providers equipment in exchange
>> to
>> free up spectrum for both parties if it is required to enable the link.
>>
>> Changes to rules does not have to translate to less reliabilty or harm to
>> pre-existing users. Instead they cater to new innovation, that allows a
>> better more efficient use comapred to what was previously there.
>>
>> Tom DeReggi
>> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
>> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Chuck McCown - 3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:20 AM
>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting 
>> today...
>>
>>
>>> The licensed stuff is not frequency hopping or spread spectrum.  It is
>>> generally big time QAM with tons of margin.  Like 40 dB+ of margin. 
>>> Part
>>> 90
>>> and Part 101 radios have been around for a very long time, way back
>>> before
>>> microprocessors.  So spectral efficiency is not the name of the game
>>> there.
>>> It is all about availability and fading.  We try to design for 99.999%
>>> availability using the old AT&T long haul spec.  With the new digital
>>> radios
>>> with error correction, that spec is conservative, but we still use it.
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" 
>>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:03 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
>>> today...
>>>
>>>
I agree somewhat on the licensed gear needing to step it up a bit. 
Chuck
 refers to needing 100 MHz (a pair of 50 MHz channels) to do a licensed
 link,
 and I've never seen one do more than 600 mbit after you add on a whole
 bunch
 more IDU\ODU combinations on a single antenna.  Orthogon does 300 mbit
 in
 30
 MHz, end of story.

 Well, I guess the past year has introduced some more higher speed gear,
 but
 still not as spectrally efficient as UL gear that has been out there 
 for
 a
 few years.


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



 --
 From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 7:02 PM
 To: "WISPA General List" 
 Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting
 today...

>
>
>> Tom... isn't putting a barrier to entry the point?
>
> No. Not when I'm the one that gets prevented from using the spectrum
> due
> to
> the barrier to entry.
>
>> Telco's (like Chuck) use
>> 6GHz all the time because they own the towers and build them to
>> support
>> the
>> dishes.
>
> Thats great for him. But in my county, its not feasible to build
> towers,
> its
> $20,000 just to submit the special exeption application, regardless of
> whether its approved.
> Its not uncommon for it to take 3 years of legal.lobby effort to get
> the
> right to build a tower, IF it occurs.
>
>> Didn't At&T almost exclusively use 6GHz for most of their towers?
>>
>
> Exactly. Its a rule that helps RBOCs keep exclusive use of spectrum,
> that
> should be better available to smaller companies that don't "build/own"
> the
> actual towers.
> It should be a prerequisit to put up a $100,000 towe

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Tom DeReggi]

> Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up

That depends on who "We" is.

Money has to be made before taxes can be paid on it :-(

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT election results


> Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up.  Hope everyone
> enjoys it.
>
> Brad
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] OT election results
>
> Hi All,
>
> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing 
> that
>
> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for
> us?
>
> marlon
>
>
>
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Tom DeReggi]

Taxes are the least of my concern, at this point.

My concern is what will happen to the Lending/Financial market?

Will it be easier or harder to get financing for WISP expansion (lease or 
capitol purchases)?
What will happen to our real estate assets? Will banks recognize the fair 
value of them, again?
These will all be effected by whetehr the economy suffers or improves.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles Wyble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] OT election results


> Brad,
>
> You are 100% correct. Taxes up.
>
> Markets haven't reacted well at all to the choice for our new leader.
> Not at all.
>
> Brad Belton wrote:
>> Well it's certainly clear that our taxes will be going up.  Hope everyone
>> enjoys it.
>>
>> Brad
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer
>> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:17 PM
>> To: WISPA General List
>> Subject: [WISPA] OT election results
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing 
>> that
>>
>> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like 
>> for
>> us?
>>
>> marlon
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[3-dB Networks]

Probably depends on who you are dealing with... :-)

In a practical sense you shouldn't have to deploy 11GHz secondary as 18GHz
fits that bill nicely.  But in most of Colorado (and Washington DC) it is
either impossible or very difficult to deploy 18GHz gear.  So its either 4'
23GHz or take the risk on 11GHz.  Personally I'm not worried about it... as
the 2' dish is pretty close to meeting the 3' dish requirements as far as
side lobes (at least with my limited understanding)

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:07 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary
licenses.  Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an
undesirable position at some time in the future?  The fewer surprises the
better, IMO.

Best,


Brad



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Brad,

Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I
guess it could become more of an issue.

I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they
told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a
secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Hello Daniel,

A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are speaking
of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.

With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...

Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
once or twice?  

Best,


Brad

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Brad,

I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license holders
had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more than
once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.

I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm not
ever worried about an issue with it

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Brad Belton
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Tom, 

Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
that and yes, that does make a big difference.

While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never be
allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only to
have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, a
larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, but
the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth it.
Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
links are for the birds.

The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw up
even more RF space.

I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed links
(Chuck outlines some of these in another post) are reason enough.  I'll pay
more for a better product and more piece of mind.

Best,


Brad


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Chuck McCown - 2
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

There is a ton of licensed 6 GHz systems already deployed.  They make you 
use a larger antenna so the beamwidth is narrower.  I allows more frequency 
reuse due to lower sidelobes and less footprint.  We are in a rural area and

sometimes they have a hard time finding us a pair o

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[3-dB Networks]

Makes you wonder... if the Orthogon guys are building the new Moto licensed
product... what might they do?

:-)  That is a happy thought

Daniel White
3-dB Networks

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:37 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

Actually.

when comparing 5.x UL to 6G licensed, there is no functional difference in 
technology.
There is NO reason a 6ghz radio can't be made as efficient as a Orthogon 
5.x.

Licensed just gives protection from interference at very low noise 
threshhold.
It does not change the characteristics of the RF technology.
That same engineering can be done with a UL Orthogon, without the 
"protection".
Its should be even more feasible to meet Orthogon specs considering that the

protection is granted, to be allowed the link margins that will survive the 
deployment of the innovations.

There is absolutely no arguement that holds water to suggest that a Lciensed

Link needs to be less efficient. The whole purpose of Licensed is having 
protection to be most efficient.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Brad Belton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary
> licenses.  Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an
> undesirable position at some time in the future?  The fewer surprises the
> better, IMO.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I
> guess it could become more of an issue.
>
> I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they
> told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a
> secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are 
> speaking
> of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
> long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.
>
> With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
> long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...
>
> Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
> once or twice?
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license 
> holders
> had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more 
> than
> once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
>
> I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
> 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm 
> not
> ever worried about an issue with it
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Tom,
>
> Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
> greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
> that and yes, that does make a big difference.
>
> While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never 
> be
> allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only 
> to
> have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, 
> a
> larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, 
> but
> the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth 
> it.
> Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
> the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
> links are for the birds.
>
> The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
> talking

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[ccooper]

>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Since I've not seen any political discussions here of late I'm guessing
>> that
>>
>> most folks were just as discussed at the choices as I was.
>>
>> Anyone have any thoughts as to what the next 2 to 4 years will be like for
>> us?
>>
>

So Jesus, Barack Obama and Boy George walk into a bar Oh wait,  
wrong list, sorry.

c


This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Tom Sharples]

>
> Money has to be made before taxes can be paid on it :-(
>

In the State of Washington, that's not even  true - they have a nasty gross 
receipts tax, and with Gregoire being re-elected, that's not going to change 
anytime soon.

Tom S.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...

[Tom DeReggi]

Yes, it is a happy thought from a technical perspective. Just hope they 
don't put the Orthogon price tag on it :-)


Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "3-dB Networks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" 
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...


> Probably depends on who you are dealing with... :-)
>
> In a practical sense you shouldn't have to deploy 11GHz secondary as 18GHz
> fits that bill nicely.  But in most of Colorado (and Washington DC) it is
> either impossible or very difficult to deploy 18GHz gear.  So its either 
> 4'
> 23GHz or take the risk on 11GHz.  Personally I'm not worried about it... 
> as
> the 2' dish is pretty close to meeting the 3' dish requirements as far as
> side lobes (at least with my limited understanding)
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:07 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Interesting as the guys at Micronet advised us not to consider secondary
> licenses.  Why do it when a secondary license could put you in an
> undesirable position at some time in the future?  The fewer surprises the
> better, IMO.
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 8:37 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> Your right... I think its only been available for 2 years or so... so I
> guess it could become more of an issue.
>
> I had a long conversation with a few of the guys over at Micronet... they
> told me that between all of the guys over there, they had never seen a
> secondary license be forced to upgrade dishes
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:42 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> A license from the FCC is typically 10yrs on the frequencies we are 
> speaking
> of.  How long has the secondary license option been available?  Not very
> long or nearly long enough to conclude it hasn't or won't become an issue.
>
> With the rate that we are seeing licensed links being deployed it won't be
> long before those cases become much more prevalent.  Just an opinion...
>
> Just curious, but where did you find or hear that this has only happened
> once or twice?
>
> Best,
>
>
> Brad
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of 3-dB Networks
> Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Brad,
>
> I would encourage you to find 5 cases where 11GHz secondary license 
> holders
> had to upgrade dishes.  From what I understand it hasn't happened more 
> than
> once or twice... doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
>
> I'm going to be helping a customer deploy an 11Ghz 2ft dish link (would be
> 18GHz if it was allowed in that part of Colorado) in the next week.  I'm 
> not
> ever worried about an issue with it
>
> Daniel White
> 3-dB Networks
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Brad Belton
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:20 PM
> To: 'WISPA General List'
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] My favorite quotes from the FCC TVWS meeting today...
>
> Tom,
>
> Off the top of my head my guess is the difference is going to be much
> greater than 1* between 3' and 6' antennas.  Probably two to three times
> that and yes, that does make a big difference.
>
> While the 11Ghz "secondary" license is available it would probably never 
> be
> allowed on our network.  Why go to all the expense of a 11Ghz system only 
> to
> have the possibility for it to need to be revamped or brought down?  Yes, 
> a
> larger antenna can be a good bit more to handle than a smaller antenna, 
> but
> the chance of possibly having to redo the job a second time isn't worth 
> it.
> Do it right the first time and forget about it.  Granted, there is always
> the exception to the rule, but IMO and in our market secondary "licensed"
> links are for the birds.
>
> The "barrier to entry" as you call it is a good thing!  We are, after all,
> talking about licensed links and not UL.  Why risk having diptidos screw 
> up
> even more RF space.  
>
> I'm all for keeping the entry point to licensed links at a much higher
> standard.  The critical services that are dependent on these licensed 
> links
> (Chuck outlines s

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Jack Unger]

There have now been two requests to take this thread off this list and 
move it to some other, more appropriate list.



Tom Sharples wrote:
>   
>> Money has to be made before taxes can be paid on it :-(
>>
>> 
>
> In the State of Washington, that's not even  true - they have a nasty gross 
> receipts tax, and with Gregoire being re-elected, that's not going to change 
> anytime soon.
>
> Tom S.
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   

-- 
Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Cisco Press Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
Read my new EBook-"Minimize Your Microwave Energy Exposure from Cellphones" 
http://www.lulu.com/content/4368917
FCC Lic. #PG-12-25133 LinkedIn Profile 
Phone 818-227-4220  Email <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?

[Mike Hammett]

*nods*  DECT is a cordless phone protocol that operates in its own band. 
It's just recently starting to catch on here in the states, but it has been 
quite popular in Europe.

It's very advanced too...  you can have repeaters, multiple APs, etc 
kinda like WIFI, but for phones.


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



--
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 5:10 PM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" 

Subject: [WISPA] 1.9ghz?

> Hi,
>
> I wasn't aware you could get a cordless phone that operates in 1.9ghz???
>
> Uniden DECT2080-2 shows it operates in the "interference free cordless
> frequency".
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Sam Tetherow]

I will bring this back on topic by bringing up the FCC seats that will 
change with the new administration.  Does anyone have any thoughts on 
who will get appointed to the FCC and what effect it will have on us?

Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless

Jack Unger wrote:
> There have now been two requests to take this thread off this list and 
> move it to some other, more appropriate list.
>
>
>
> Tom Sharples wrote:
>   
>>   
>> 
>>> Money has to be made before taxes can be paid on it :-(
>>>
>>> 
>>>   
>> In the State of Washington, that's not even  true - they have a nasty gross 
>> receipts tax, and with Gregoire being re-elected, that's not going to change 
>> anytime soon.
>>
>> Tom S.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>   
>> 
>
>   




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] heavy usage customers

[Sam Tetherow]

lol

Travis Johnson wrote:
> Separate pockets, same pair of pants.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt wrote:
>>> Nothing, if you own the fiber.
>>> 
>>
>> I thought your wireless and telco operations were seperate?
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>   
> We generally use Dragonwave or fiber to the AP.  So no latency to speak
> of
> there.
> >From our Canopy sub to our NOC I would say 7 is what most get.
> 
 Wish we could afford Dragonwave or fiber to each site.  How much does that
 cost?
   
>>
>>
>> 
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>> 
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>
>>   
> 
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] OT election results

[Butch Evans]

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Sam Tetherow wrote:

>I will bring this back on topic by bringing up the FCC seats that 
>will change with the new administration.  Does anyone have any 
>thoughts on who will get appointed to the FCC and what effect it 
>will have on us?

I have my hopes...I don't have a good guess as to who will run the 
FCC.  It'll have an impact for sure, as the current FCC decided to 
forgo the opportunity to finalize things for the TVWS.  They made a 
big part of the choice (we can use it)...they left some of the 
details to the new recruits.

-- 

* Butch Evans   * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/* Network Engineering  *
* http://www.wispa.org/ * WISPA Board Member   *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/   * Wired or Wireless Networks   *




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/