RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Patrick: I posit that the LACK of any significant consensus from the industry on 3650, when there WAS a clearly indicated desire on the part of the FCC to try out some form of mandated sharing, bolsters the case that the simplicity of Part 15 / UNII rules makes for more innovation. See... the "we ought to be able to do better" mentality is a bit of a trap. "Better" by WHOSE definition? Community Wireless activists? Experimenters? Neighborhoods? Carriers? Deep pocketed entrepreneurs? Individual entrepreneurs with a good idea? Rural? Urban? Suburban? Equipment vendors? WISPs? BWIA Service Providers? Communities? Enterprises? Point-to-point? Point-to-multipoint? Mesh? Mobile? Fixed? Nomadic? For profit? Not-for-profit? If you make it favorable for any particular group, another group (who has an equally legitimate "claim" to use that spectrum) is disadvantaged. If there's to be any hope for "better", a consensus needs to emerge. It hasn't, and I doubt it will. So... right now 3650 is looking like a failed experiment in "licensed-light" much like Unlicensed PCS was. If you need an example of failed "better"... Unlicensed PCS is a chilling example. Why in the world do we have cordless phones on 2.4 and 5.8 GHz instead of Unlicensed PCS (1.9 GHz)? Because the rules there were not nearly as favorable as the "we'll build good systems, make 'em cheap, and take our chances" 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands. I'm not trying to say that the rules are sacrosanct, nor that were they designed to have the very positive outcome they've produced (such as the entire WISP industry), or that we couldn't theoretically do better. But we HAVEN'T figured out how to do it better yet, despite having opportunities like 3650 to do so. However it happened, we're seeing incredible innovation in the license-exempt bands under the current rules. So for now, let's NOT tinker with what's DEMONSTRATABLY working in those very small portions of spectrum where innovation is allowed to occur unfettered by the "Mother, May I?" paradigm that has been applied across the rest of the RF portions of the electromagnetic spectrum in the US. If you want "certainty" in the use of RF, mandated cooperation / "play nice"... there's AMPLE licensed spectrum going completely unused. That particular groups cannot make use of that vacant spectrum... THAT is a real problem that has yet to be effectively addressed. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > "A secondary flaw is that you read into the "spirit" of the rules that > "efficiency" is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the > license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or > encourages efficiency. It's simply not there." > > ...exactly my point, it is not there. But that does not mean that it should > not be, nor does it mean that the FCC is not interested in efficient use. > > Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct, > there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In > 3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not > accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to > speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they > looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate. > > Patrick Leary > AVP Marketing > Alvarion, Inc. > o: 650.314.2628 > c: 760.580.0080 > Vonage: 650.641.1243 --- Steve Stroh 425-939-0076 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.stevestroh.com -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
3650 update (was Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update)
Patrick Leary wrote: Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct, there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In 3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate. Any chance for a 3650 update along the same lines as your WiMAX email? -Matt -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
"A secondary flaw is that you read into the "spirit" of the rules that "efficiency" is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or encourages efficiency. It's simply not there." ...exactly my point, it is not there. But that does not mean that it should not be, nor does it mean that the FCC is not interested in efficient use. Steve, I simply refuse to accept that the current rules are sacrosanct, there are not, and the proposed rules for 3650MHz bolter my case. In 3650MHz, the FCC made strong and specific reference that they well might not accept products that they believed were designed not to, play nice, so to speak. The FCC clearly understands many of the flaws of Part 15 and they looked upon 3650MHz as a clean slate. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Patrick: Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion. The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY allocation... WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use, so license-exempt communications users of the band are subject to all manner of interference, only SOME of which may be caused from other license-exempt communications users of the band. Not to mention that license-exempt users of the band are distinctly secondary to licensed communications users of those bands, and must accept interference from licensed users without in turn causing harmful interference back to licensed users. A secondary flaw is that you read into the "spirit" of the rules that "efficiency" is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or encourages efficiency. It's simply not there. The FCC made a portion of spectrum available that was originally intended for other uses, with licensed services having priority layered on top of the ISM uses, and says to would-be license-exempt communications users "IF you can LIVE WITHIN THESE MINIMAL RULES, have at it." So... "technically adhering to the letter of the rule" is ALL that matters in the end as far as the FCC is concerned. If you adhere to their rules, you're doing EVERYTHING that's required. I'm certainly not positing that this is an optimum way of doing things - it's fraught with peril. But in my mind, the Darwinian Effect, flawed though it is, is providing us with new and innovative services and products, FAR faster, that cost FAR less, than what is happening in licensed spectrum. What's really beautiful about US license-exempt spectrum, and what's SO incredibly frustrating about it to the incumbent telecom industry is that it pretty much cannot be "gamed" - unlike every other communications channel, license-exempt spectrum is open to all who want to TRY to make use of it - no one can say "NO, you cannot operate your system here!" (as long as you are adhering to the letter of the FCC rules). The rules, such as they are right now, have served us VERY well, and tinkering at the margins to "fix" things may well result in causing permanent damage one of the most vibrant sectors of what's left of the telecom industry. If INDUSTRY wants to correct things, there's no end of opportunity to do so. 3650 is a fantastic opportunity in that the FCC said "SHOW us what YOU, industry, want to do with a contention protocol for "almost-license-exempt" band. All industry wanted to do was complain that they couldn't figure out how to cooperate to come up with one. Absent the resources of the industry being able to come up with something... how could the FCC possibly come up with a better scheme? At least they wisely decided to "do no harm" and mandate a particular scheme for 3650. As for Alvarion's investments, or lack of them, given the issues in license-exempt spectrum... it used to matter, and years ago Alvarion's systems were critical in proving to investors, larger companies, and regulatory officials that using license-exempt spectrum WASN'T incompatible with reliable operations. That was huge - back then. But the industry has moved past the "does it really work?" stage and it's now very robust and diverse. Alvarion's prime responsibility is to it's stockholders, and as such it has to invest its resources "safely", which probably means that it can't "place bets" as it once was more free to do. But again, that just leaves more room for new entrants or other companies and technologies. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > I absolutely agree with the "oh well" part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair > game competition. But, in your definition, being "robust" is simply about > clobbering
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Patrick: Yup - agree to disagree, and remaining civil in the discussion. The basic flaw in your perspective is that the current US license-exempt bands are intended for communications use. They're not- their PRIMARY allocation... WAY back, is for Industrial, Scientific, and Medical use, so license-exempt communications users of the band are subject to all manner of interference, only SOME of which may be caused from other license-exempt communications users of the band. Not to mention that license-exempt users of the band are distinctly secondary to licensed communications users of those bands, and must accept interference from licensed users without in turn causing harmful interference back to licensed users. A secondary flaw is that you read into the "spirit" of the rules that "efficiency" is a desireable trait of systems that operate in the license-exempt bands. It isn't - NOTHING in the FCC rules describes or encourages efficiency. It's simply not there. The FCC made a portion of spectrum available that was originally intended for other uses, with licensed services having priority layered on top of the ISM uses, and says to would-be license-exempt communications users "IF you can LIVE WITHIN THESE MINIMAL RULES, have at it." So... "technically adhering to the letter of the rule" is ALL that matters in the end as far as the FCC is concerned. If you adhere to their rules, you're doing EVERYTHING that's required. I'm certainly not positing that this is an optimum way of doing things - it's fraught with peril. But in my mind, the Darwinian Effect, flawed though it is, is providing us with new and innovative services and products, FAR faster, that cost FAR less, than what is happening in licensed spectrum. What's really beautiful about US license-exempt spectrum, and what's SO incredibly frustrating about it to the incumbent telecom industry is that it pretty much cannot be "gamed" - unlike every other communications channel, license-exempt spectrum is open to all who want to TRY to make use of it - no one can say "NO, you cannot operate your system here!" (as long as you are adhering to the letter of the FCC rules). The rules, such as they are right now, have served us VERY well, and tinkering at the margins to "fix" things may well result in causing permanent damage one of the most vibrant sectors of what's left of the telecom industry. If INDUSTRY wants to correct things, there's no end of opportunity to do so. 3650 is a fantastic opportunity in that the FCC said "SHOW us what YOU, industry, want to do with a contention protocol for "almost-license-exempt" band. All industry wanted to do was complain that they couldn't figure out how to cooperate to come up with one. Absent the resources of the industry being able to come up with something... how could the FCC possibly come up with a better scheme? At least they wisely decided to "do no harm" and mandate a particular scheme for 3650. As for Alvarion's investments, or lack of them, given the issues in license-exempt spectrum... it used to matter, and years ago Alvarion's systems were critical in proving to investors, larger companies, and regulatory officials that using license-exempt spectrum WASN'T incompatible with reliable operations. That was huge - back then. But the industry has moved past the "does it really work?" stage and it's now very robust and diverse. Alvarion's prime responsibility is to it's stockholders, and as such it has to invest its resources "safely", which probably means that it can't "place bets" as it once was more free to do. But again, that just leaves more room for new entrants or other companies and technologies. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > I absolutely agree with the "oh well" part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair > game competition. But, in your definition, being "robust" is simply about > clobbering other systems to make room for your own. That is a bit like > saying a bobtail big rig (or at least one not hauling anything much) is more > robust than the other vehicles running along the road because it is able to > force them off the road. Now, nothing in the rules prohibits that action, > but I do not think that that is robust in the intended definition of the > word, nor do I think it follows the spirit of the rule, though maybe it does > technically adhere to the letter of the rule. > > As you know Steve, we agree that we disagree! :) I am exceedingly familiar > with the developments within the mesh space, but again, my point is that > these are investments to work within and around a flawed regulatory regime. > I do not fault the FCC -- folks like Dr. Marcus invented these rules without > knowing really what might become of them. However, these rules are not > natural imperatives and there is no reason why they cannot be evolved in a > method that will advance the simple goal of using the spectrum as > efficiently as possibly in service of the public int
Re: [WISPA] Wisp Wireless Internet Google Map DONE!
fix the link...you need to paste the "et.html" on the end in the browser... Brian Rohrbacher wrote: same here. Page flashes up for a sec but then goes away to the other "unable" page. JohnnyO wrote: We do ? This is what I get when I click on the link below you provided We are currently unable to serve your request We apologize, but an error occurred and your request could not be completed. This error has been logged. If you have additional information that you believe may have caused this error please report the problem here. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 5:08 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: [WISPA] Wisp Wireless Internet Google Map DONE! Guys... after a year of fiddling and fumbling... we now finally have a usable LINKABLE google map for WISPS please put your wisp details into the GOOGLEMAP... thanks for all your feedback... it made about 70% of this new design... bob kim GOOGLEMAP: http://evdo-coverage.com/wireless-internet-access-wimax-evdo-hsdpa-map-s et.html -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
I absolutely agree with the "oh well" part in the sense of hard-nosed, fair game competition. But, in your definition, being "robust" is simply about clobbering other systems to make room for your own. That is a bit like saying a bobtail big rig (or at least one not hauling anything much) is more robust than the other vehicles running along the road because it is able to force them off the road. Now, nothing in the rules prohibits that action, but I do not think that that is robust in the intended definition of the word, nor do I think it follows the spirit of the rule, though maybe it does technically adhere to the letter of the rule. As you know Steve, we agree that we disagree! :) I am exceedingly familiar with the developments within the mesh space, but again, my point is that these are investments to work within and around a flawed regulatory regime. I do not fault the FCC -- folks like Dr. Marcus invented these rules without knowing really what might become of them. However, these rules are not natural imperatives and there is no reason why they cannot be evolved in a method that will advance the simple goal of using the spectrum as efficiently as possibly in service of the public interest (being UL spectrum, decisions should be made with interests of the public at heart first, not necessarily in the interest of commercial operators or suppliers). Imagine what these same new entrants might be able to do with their technology with better rules. Patrick Leary AVP Marketing Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 -Original Message- From: Steve Stroh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 10:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Patrick: I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding "survival of the nastiest" - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed environment. If that behavior is perceived as "nasty" by systems that are less robust, oh well. But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services based on that lower level of performance. My "Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless" encompasses not just the technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely "more survivable" - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get bought. We've seen what happens to systems that are "survivable" but don't evolve their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often from entirely new vendors. The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative - little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the licenses. Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more than balances out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't possible. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > Tom, > > You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of > the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all > types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The > problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and > inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest R&D to come up > with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward > for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable to > interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real > investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market > developi
Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund & White Space
These are just my thoughts, but they come from having taken a serious beating in DC over the last 18 months. Lesson One: FCC will protect the PSTN and the associated ILECs at all costs. Lesson Two: Tax monies are THE issue. Lesson Three: No Free Lunch. None. Period. Lesson Four: Politicians will say one thing and do the opposite. Always figure out where their bread is buttered. That said: You want white space. You want more Unlicensed Spectrum. You want USF funds. You want E-rate monies. Okay. What are you willing to sacrifice in return? USF is a white cow for people such as Sen. Stevens. If you want USF money, you will have to start charging/collecting USF money. If you want E-Rate, learn the system, get a SPIN number, suck up to the Board of Education, and get some E-Rate projects. (You won't win it with the lowest bid alone. No one wants to change the status quo). If you want more unlicensed spectrum, what will you do for the FCC or the PSTN or the SYSTEM? This list complained loudly and publicly about filling out the required Broadband subscriber forms. What will you do when you are filling out 499/499a forms? What about when you have to make your USF payments on a timely, quarterly basis, but the system won't accept payments under $1000? (Plus that 11% fee will not help your lowest price system of selling). That's my 2 cents. Be careful out there. They eat their young. Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Patrick: I disagree that the market is (directly) rewarding "survival of the nastiest" - it's rewarding systems that are designed to survive in a mixed environment. If that behavior is perceived as "nasty" by systems that are less robust, oh well. But there's a tradeoff - systems whose primary feature is survivability will eventually fall out of favor because their performance will not be acceptable and the users of such systems won't be able to sell services based on that lower level of performance. My "Darwinian Effect of License-exempt Wireless" encompasses not just the technological evolution of license-exempt systems, but also the economic evolution of license-exempt systems. It's not enough to be merely "more survivable" - there's an intense ECONOMIC imperative to be better-performing, more cost-effective... otherwise the systems won't get bought. We've seen what happens to systems that are "survivable" but don't evolve their performance - two that immediately come to mind are RadioLAN and Airdata WIMAN; both were very robust, but didn't offer competitive performance over time. Older product lines eventually fall victim to newer, higher-performance, more cost-effective product lines... often from entirely new vendors. The beautiful thing about the ISM/UNII rules is that no one can be EXCLUDED; you're permitted to TRY just about anything that follows the relatively simple and basic rules. That's what enables the Darwinian Effect. The risks are WELL known... at least they should be, by anyone wanting to try to make a business using the ISM/UNII bands. If the risks aren't to one's liking, well there's always the licensed alternative - little technological risk, but huge economic risk from the cost of the licenses. Understood that the risk/reward of license-exempt spectrum might not be high enough for the biggest players to make multi-million dollar investments into license-exempt spectrum. But... the HUGE market means that smaller players seem to keep being willing to try, and that more than balances out the seeming lack of investment from the largest players. For example, though Alvarion deigns to participate in the municipal mesh Wi-Fi business, that doesn't seem to be hurting that business as that leaves lots of room for smaller players - Tropos, SkyPilot Networks, BelAir Networks, etc., all offering ample innovation and good performance in providing a service that the conventional wisdom says that wasn't possible. Thanks, Steve On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Patrick Leary wrote: > Tom, > > You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of > the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all > types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The > problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and > inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest R&D to come up > with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward > for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable to > interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real > investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market > developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of > serious R&D investment such as that seen on the licensed side. > > As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operators > themselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most efficient > systems. > > [I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a > system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself > survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may be > considered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy -- the > rules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to do > everything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course. However, > markets are not fond of investing in R&D to get around artificial problems, > i.e. problems created by easily manipulated regulations.] > > Back in 2002 I was one a few panelists representing the UL BWA market (Steve > Stroh was there too on another panel) on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task > Force. The panel I was on was to recommend and debate the evolution of the > UL bands. Most were up there thinking WLAN, not WMAN, and they did not even > understand the implication of their proposals in the outdoor, metro scale > world of wireless. A few were up there saying we needed more power for > rural. > > My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding > higher power rules based on better efficiency, and that efficiency could > come any number of ways, through better and more narrow, high quality (good > emitters, without lots of spurious noise) antennas, higher sensitivity and > intelligence, better capacity per MHz (especially better packet per second > type effici
RE: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update
Tom, You correctly identify the Achilles Heel of modern day UL -- the survival of the nastiest phenomenon. The Part 15.247 rules give equal standing to all types of systems, regardless of how spectrally gluttonous or abusive. The problem with this is that it rewards downward innovation (i.e. dumb and inefficient), offering no incentives for developers to invest R&D to come up with more efficient, higher performing PMP techniques. There is no reward for high performance, especially in PMP where devices are most vulnerable to interference. This is a genuine reason why there is so little real investment in PMP UL. I am not talking about the creative, small market developing and tinkering that goes on, but rather the multi-millions of serious R&D investment such as that seen on the licensed side. As well, the logical extension of this problem is that WISP operators themselves are not rewarded in a spectrum sense by using the most efficient systems. [I should insert a note here that recognizes that bringing to market a system that might be considered spectrally abusive so that it itself survives, all while conforming perfectly within the regulations, may be considered to be an entirely sound, even smart, competitive strategy -- the rules do not require me to play well with others, so I'm going to do everything I can to make sure I do not, within the rules of course. However, markets are not fond of investing in R&D to get around artificial problems, i.e. problems created by easily manipulated regulations.] Back in 2002 I was one a few panelists representing the UL BWA market (Steve Stroh was there too on another panel) on the FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force. The panel I was on was to recommend and debate the evolution of the UL bands. Most were up there thinking WLAN, not WMAN, and they did not even understand the implication of their proposals in the outdoor, metro scale world of wireless. A few were up there saying we needed more power for rural. My input regarded changing the rules to allow for some type of sliding higher power rules based on better efficiency, and that efficiency could come any number of ways, through better and more narrow, high quality (good emitters, without lots of spurious noise) antennas, higher sensitivity and intelligence, better capacity per MHz (especially better packet per second type efficiency), etc. The better one performed, the higher power allowed. To do this, in my head I was thinking that a base line point of measurement would be some type of low performing product connected to an omni. Put that same radio on sector, you get more power. Put a more efficient radio on that omni, you get more power. Put a really efficient radio on a well-performing on a well-performing, narrow beam antenna and gets lots of power. Etc. Etc. I am sure smart people can come up some type of algorithm that incorporates most of the variables that and make something efficient, while leaving room for the formula to advance to accept new techniques that create efficiency. Such a rule would give operators incentive to employ the best systems since such would require the least number of cells and such. And suppliers would be continually encouraged to invest and innovate, because we'd know that the market would be encouraged to support new technology for the rewards in power and performance to be gained. Another great thing about these proposed rules was that they are technology neutral (the FCC does not like to specify technology these days). The rules simply would have been some type of math formula where the answer was always a reference to allowed power output (EIRP). I also wanted a registration rule, very similar to what the FCC called out for 3650MHz. I wanted it low fee (but enough to provides monies for rules enforcement), non-exclusive, and open, with only registration (not licensing) of infrastructure nodes and their locations. At the time, I really do not think most in the room or at the Commission fully grasped what I was getting at. Maybe I did not articulate it well enough (though it was all captured on video and remains archived on the FCC web site). But, I still think that such rules have the best chance of bringing about a positive revolution in UL BWA. Regards, Patrick -Original Message- From: Tom DeReggi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 5:06 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] UL WiMAX update Patrick, Forgive the "Me to", but Patrick, GREAT POST on UL WIMAX! Your post did not only address Wimax, but also addressed several of the big delimna's for WISPs and the FCC. How to coexist. This industry has grown to the point that MANY WISPs/Players have significant amounts invested in theior strategies. There becomes a big conflict of, "does a Operator/Provider support what protect's their investment or what is best for the industry?". If the Provider has an Ego, they could argue that the survival of their own company c
[WISPA] Columbia SC
Can any provide wireless here? Street: 6911 N. Trenholm Road Building / Floor / Room: Suite #2 City, State, ZIp: Columbia, SC 29206 Phone: 803-782-5445 Seems to be no cable or DSL. -- Regards, Peter RAD-INFO, Inc. - NSP Strategist We Help ISPs Connect & Communicate 813.963.5884 http://4isps.com/newsletter.htm -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund
First of all we should all understand that USF is not going anywhere. Our nation’s telecommunications network is too important. Second with the above understanding we should try and push the legislation to account for the work we as WISP's are doing and allow us to contribute and receive funding from USF. I reed an article about some proposed legislation that uses a reverse auction style for USF funding. This would allow for the most efficient network to receive the appropriate funding. We can in almost all cases implement the same or better network for less then an established Telco. Thus this legislation would give us the trim and fit organizations a competitive edge. ABOVE ALL we need to be included in the new legislator. It should not be technology dependent but results dependent. One thing to realize if this does happen that likely every Telco out there would start using wireless equipment to stay competitive and all the effects of that must be understood. Anthony Will Broadband Solutions Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: I talked (personally, not as WISPA) with the commerce committee co-chair's staff person on USF today. What it LOOKED like was said in the conference hearing I saw (and she agreed that it sounded this way) was that USF had paid for the laptops. What really happened was that USF paid for other things allowing the school system to buy the laptops themselves. In my mind this is a matter of semantics as it means that there wasn't as much money needed in the first place. We had a really good talk. She said that in about two weeks they'll be working more in earnest on the issue. Coming up with more specific proposals for people to talk about. On the white spaces issue. We talked about the ideas in our position paper. She didn't think that the idea that all TV spectrum should be open would fly. But did like the idea of using smart radios and allowing use now not after the DTV transition. She also seemed to understand the need for sub gig spectrum at higher power levels. We'll see where it all goes. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Dustin Jurman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Hey Marlon, I like your point about the laptops, we really need to check and make sure it's outside of the USF charter. I think we definitely need more stories of how USF is not bringing tangible results to communities, where WISPS are delivering service to those communities self funded. Dustin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 1:32 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Here's what I wrote up on USF. Several felt it's got some errors that need fixing. Feel free to fix this, toss it and start over. Anything at all. But right now, officially, we're doing NOTHING. And that must change guys. Someone needs to come up with a position paper for WISPA to work from. Right now I've got some access to some in congress and I think we should work with that! laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services 42846865 (icq) And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "John Scrivner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 10:25 AM Subject: [WISPA] Universal Service Fund Marlon has been asking us for a while to give him feedback on Universal Service. We have not helped him as much as we should have. He asked for input from the WISPA membership originally. I am asking everyone, members or not, if you can help. Marlon has been asked by a member of the House Commerce Committee (One of his Reps in Washington) to help them structure legislation toward the re-working on the Universal Service Program. Thoughts on the Hill are now leaning toward making it available to multiple operators in a market and opening it to aid in broadband as well as telco. The feeling from most WISPs is two things to date. Most think the government should make Universal Service just go away. I share some of that feeling myself. What should be known though is that government rarely makes things go away. They usually want a role. With that said we need to give them ideas on how to make this program help us in our goal to bring broadband into underserved and/or unserved areas. To do this we need to understand what the program does, what was its history, how it works and how it does not work. We need to develop a strong strategy for dealing with Universal Service and of
