Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Hey Ron, What would be the cost to setup the link you talked about in this note? Is there more operators in our area to split the cost, could we find some local business or others to buy a block Of bandwith? J ust some thoughts Dave Ellis Whisp LLC -- Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: WISPA General List Sent: Fri Aug 05 20:45:04 2005 Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I have some experience at 6, 11, 13, 18 & 23 GHz, more at 6, 11 &13. These were all carrier links never used a 6' dish unless it was a short path, less than 8 mi., usually 6 or less. WE built 40 dB fade margin into every path. tried to keep the radiated signal beem as narrow as possible, larger antennas, greater gain, they don't burn out. Downside is stiffer towers, very expensive. However, at 6 and 11 you can get 672 Mb/s and that's good. I don't have the money right now or I would have a two hop system to Southfield MI where a meg is around 100-125. My point, the licensed spectrum is excellent, no interference, and w/ enough fade margin it rocks. Lonnie and Marlon - I support everything they say, nearly. We need to use whatever we can get our hands on, that lifts our advantage. So keep it up guys. Original message >Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:03:55 -0700 >From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >To: "WISPA General List" > >Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a >shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. >For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. > >Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. >Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you >get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just >that simple. > >I honestly see few down sides to this idea. > >I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far >it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a >bit shocked. > >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > >> Marlon and Lonnie, >> >> First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest >> rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. >> >> However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in >> these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to >> every ounce of spectrum that we can. >> >> I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to >> have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna >> requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost >> effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the >> band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I >> think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. >> I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it >> usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was >> reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and >> pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. >> >> Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, >> excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking >> about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean >> much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline >> or Trango :-) >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Friday
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Lonnie, it would not be unreasonable to allow 2' or larger dishes. I don't think anyone here is thinking about real short shots. John Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
This is a fantastic idea. I have a situation where I need to make a 24 mile shot, and the tower owner already has 5 Ghz stuff on it and is reluctant to let me put 5 GHz equipment up. 6 GHz would be sweet, but I could probably use antennas smaller than 6 ft. John Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
17 dBi on 6 footer goes 32 miles here with 30 db fade margin @ 6 ghz Lonnie Nunweiler wrote: Can you tell me the frequencies in the 6 GHz bands that are desired? Are there any modulation limits, as to bandwidth and power output? What sort of distances are typically involved? A 6 foot dish can push a signal a very long distance or have a very high signal at a shorter distance. Lonnie On 8/6/05, A. Huppenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: $20K is about right for the radios for a licensed path. $500 to $2000 for the path analysis and license. The market has set that price. If 200 ISPs that belong to WISPA indicated their interest.. Well Lonnie might make them or someone else. The chipsets are there to operate in those bands, getting the FCC to allow them to be used in that band is a challenge. Whatever anyone wants to say about improve our effiency in using existing spectrum, we need to be fighting for more at this point, since there will be a swell of DSL users moving to Fixed wireless over the next year, as Telcos attempt to dominate that marketplace. Which will in-turn cause more congestion on the airwaves. That and the Anti-competitive actions of telcos - pricing below cost, are the two areas I recommend we all focus on. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just that simple. I honestly see few down sides to this idea. I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Can you tell me the frequencies in the 6 GHz bands that are desired? Are there any modulation limits, as to bandwidth and power output? What sort of distances are typically involved? A 6 foot dish can push a signal a very long distance or have a very high signal at a shorter distance. Lonnie On 8/6/05, A. Huppenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $20K is about right for the radios for a licensed path. $500 to $2000 > for the path analysis and license. > > The market has set that price. If 200 ISPs that belong to WISPA > indicated their interest.. Well Lonnie might make them or someone else. > The chipsets are there to operate in those bands, getting the FCC to > allow them to be used in that band is a challenge. > > Whatever anyone wants to say about improve our effiency in using > existing spectrum, we need to be fighting for more at this point, since > there will be a swell of DSL users moving to Fixed wireless over the > next year, as Telcos attempt to dominate that marketplace. Which will > in-turn cause more congestion on the airwaves. That and the > Anti-competitive actions of telcos - pricing below cost, are the two > areas I recommend we all focus on. > > Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: > > > Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) > > for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a > > couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's > > standards. > > > > Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. > > Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If > > you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. > > It's just that simple. > > > > I honestly see few down sides to this idea. > > > > I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. > > So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm > > more than a bit shocked. > > > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > >> Marlon and Lonnie, > >> > >> First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > >> suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do > >> poor designs. > >> > >> However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially > >> in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access > >> to every ounce of spectrum that we can. > >> > >> I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a > >> way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot > >> antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use > >> the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and > >> could have need for the band. However doing away with the large > >> antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band > >> with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the > >> rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, > >> what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft > >> dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting > >> approval for a 3 ft dish. > >> > >> Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market > >> today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we > >> are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, > >> that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking > >> about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > >> List" &
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
$20K is about right for the radios for a licensed path. $500 to $2000 for the path analysis and license. The market has set that price. If 200 ISPs that belong to WISPA indicated their interest.. Well Lonnie might make them or someone else. The chipsets are there to operate in those bands, getting the FCC to allow them to be used in that band is a challenge. Whatever anyone wants to say about improve our effiency in using existing spectrum, we need to be fighting for more at this point, since there will be a swell of DSL users moving to Fixed wireless over the next year, as Telcos attempt to dominate that marketplace. Which will in-turn cause more congestion on the airwaves. That and the Anti-competitive actions of telcos - pricing below cost, are the two areas I recommend we all focus on. Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 wrote: Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just that simple. I honestly see few down sides to this idea. I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that&#
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3525631 The next headline: Desperate Telco DSL partners look to wireless as salvation. Telcos clean up stealing ISP DSL customers. Spectrum Auction Prices Jump in Value as DSL 1 year transition period ends So yes, WISPs will be the remaining alternative to DSL / Cable in 12 months, cause you ain't going to get the FCC or any Anti-trust legislation, Telcos don't want to share 'their' copper infrastructure, (which the wrote off many years ago through tax breaks) The opportunity here is for the Covad's of the world to join forces with the WISPs to create low cost national alternatives to DSL and Cable. Will the FCC recognize WISPs and WISPA as a driving force? Will the FCC give the public back more spectrum? Since we all own it to begin with. Will WISPs be able to compete and innovate in the every tightening political environment which is Telco and large company centric? I think, only if WISPA wins. JNA wrote: We need more spectrum that is *our* spectrum not just spectrum to have spectrum. Sure we have what we have but we are sharing it with devices other than what we use that help trash it. John Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. Sadly I cannot find that statement. I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. Lonnie On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY h
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
We need more spectrum that is *our* spectrum not just spectrum to have spectrum. Sure we have what we have but we are sharing it with devices other than what we use that help trash it. John > > Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. > Sadly I cannot find that statement. > > I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we > should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their > spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things > to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of > bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. > > Lonnie > > > On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Marlon and Lonnie, > > > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > suggest > > rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. > > > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in > > these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to > every > > ounce of spectrum that we can. > > > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way > to > > have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna > > requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost > > effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for > the > > band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I > think > > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it > usable > > for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was > reduced > > down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty > easy > > getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, > > excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are > talking > > about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean > much > > unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or > > Trango :-) > > > > Tom DeReggi > > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > List" > > > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's > > >licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we > want > > > to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because > some > > > minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? > > > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not > all > > > that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear > because > > > you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed > gear > > > it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once > told me > > > that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. > > > Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to > happen > > > that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those > issues. > > > Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You > have > > > protection against that. > > > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or > 900. > > > He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy > toys > > > won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's > > > getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull > some > > > ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. > > > > > > And lets not forget about the cos
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I have some experience at 6, 11, 13, 18 & 23 GHz, more at 6, 11 &13. These were all carrier links never used a 6' dish unless it was a short path, less than 8 mi., usually 6 or less. WE built 40 dB fade margin into every path. tried to keep the radiated signal beem as narrow as possible, larger antennas, greater gain, they don't burn out. Downside is stiffer towers, very expensive. However, at 6 and 11 you can get 672 Mb/s and that's good. I don't have the money right now or I would have a two hop system to Southfield MI where a meg is around 100-125. My point, the licensed spectrum is excellent, no interference, and w/ enough fade margin it rocks. Lonnie and Marlon - I support everything they say, nearly. We need to use whatever we can get our hands on, that lifts our advantage. So keep it up guys. Original message >Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:03:55 -0700 >From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >To: "WISPA General List" > >Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a >shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. >For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. > >Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. >Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you >get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just >that simple. > >I honestly see few down sides to this idea. > >I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far >it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a >bit shocked. > >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > >> Marlon and Lonnie, >> >> First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest >> rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. >> >> However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in >> these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to >> every ounce of spectrum that we can. >> >> I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to >> have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna >> requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost >> effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the >> band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I >> think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. >> I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it >> usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was >> reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and >> pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. >> >> Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, >> excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking >> about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean >> much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline >> or Trango :-) >> >> Tom DeReggi >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" >> >> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >> >> >>>I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's >>>licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. >>> >>> As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we >>> want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because >>> some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Last I heard a guy could get a Harris system (both ends, just radios) for a shade under $20k. Might be a bit lower now as it's been a couple of years. For a 45 meg system that's pretty high by today's standards. Let me say this again guys. We're talking LICENSED bands here. Interference isn't an issue no matter what antennas etc. are used. If you get interference on YOUR band you can make the other guy stop. It's just that simple. I honestly see few down sides to this idea. I'd sure like to see more of the 300 or so companies here chime in. So far it's looking like 2 to 1 that we do nothing. I must admit I'm more than a bit shocked. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Tom DeReggi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 1:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things i
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
>From Lonnie : You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. Maybe this is where that impression came from Lonnie ? :) JohnnyO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 5:20 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. Sadly I cannot find that statement. I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. Lonnie On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marlon and Lonnie, > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not > suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do > poor designs. > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially > in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access > to every ounce of spectrum that we can. > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way > to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot > antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the > band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could > have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it > usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement > was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 > degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market > today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we > are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that > doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about > unlicenced redline or Trango :-) > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General > List" > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and > >it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would > > we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just > > because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely > > screw up? > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not > > all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that > > gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because > > it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once > > told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with > > our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely > > enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to > > deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference > > isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or > > 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the > > big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting > > by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig > > band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the > > antenna size issue. > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a > > good Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near > &
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Tom, I had to go and read where I said we don't need more spectrum. Sadly I cannot find that statement. I did, however, say that we must learn to use what we have before we should be given any more. When someone is not responsible with their spectrum allocation it is stupid to give them more and expect things to be fixed by getting more. We already have an incredible amount of bandwidth, but it is being squandered by a few clueless people. Lonnie On 8/5/05, Tom DeReggi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marlon and Lonnie, > > First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest > rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. > > However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in > these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every > ounce of spectrum that we can. > > I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to > have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna > requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost > effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the > band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think > would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd > suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable > for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced > down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy > getting approval for a 3 ft dish. > > Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, > excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking > about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much > unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or > Trango :-) > > Tom DeReggi > RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" > > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's > >licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. > > > > As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want > > to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some > > minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? > > > > Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could > > modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all > > that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because > > you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear > > it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. > > > > It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me > > that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. > > Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen > > that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. > > Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have > > protection against that. > > > > I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. > > He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys > > won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's > > getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some > > ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. > > > > And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are > > listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good > > Radio Waves unit, but still. > > > > I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the > > potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the > > rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives > > us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things > > is a good thing to try to do. > > > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Marlon and Lonnie, First Off, Lonnie I fully agree with your point that we should not suggest rules that discourage good design or make it to easy to do poor designs. However, saying we don't need more spectrum is rediculous, expecially in these urban areas with lots of competition. We need to gain access to every ounce of spectrum that we can. I FULLY agree with Marlon, that it would be a GREAT idea to find a way to have 6 Ghz more usable for us. It is factual that the 6 foot antenna requirement makes it near impossible for most WISPs to use the band cost effectively. I personally am effected by this and could have need for the band. However doing away with the large antenna rule all togeather I think would be a mistake. A PtP band with safety rules is advantageous. I'd suggest asking to modify the rules to the extent necessary to make it usable for us. For example, what if the min antenna size requirement was reduced down to a 3 ft dish? Thats still down to around 5 degrees, and pretty easy getting approval for a 3 ft dish. Marlon, whats the most cost effective 6 Ghz radios on the market today, excluding the antennas? Just so I understand the ball park we are talking about. When you say Licenced is still twice the cost, that doesn't mean much unless you identify wether you were talking about unlicenced redline or Trango :-) Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc - Original Message - From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Athe
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Yep, the larger the aperture, the more narrow the beam, the higher the gain. beam,Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:08:48 -0700 >From: "Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule >To: "WISPA General List" > >Nope. Sorry Gain comes from smaller beams. You can't make an antenna >cover a smaller area without making it have a higher gain. Unless you make >a REALLY crappy antenna. Believe me, I've been asking for something like >that for years. After the 6th engineer at an antenna company told me the >same thing I actually started to believe it ;-). > >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >- Original Message - >From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "WISPA General List" >Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:39 PM >Subject: RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > > > >I'm in favor of that > >How about just requiring tighter beam control on 6ghz stuff ? > >I'm sure a 2 foot dish could be restricted down to a tighter beam... > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:wireless- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On >Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 >Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:37 PM >To: FCC Discussion >Cc: wireless@wispa.org >Subject: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule > >Hi All, > >For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a >pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long >distances. > >For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the >deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building >owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > >Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a >tough rule to deal with. > >I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person >at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > >I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for >the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band >due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power >control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > >Thoughts? >Marlon >(509) 982-2181 Equipment sales >(408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services >42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! >64.146.146.12 (net meeting) >www.odessaoffice.com/wireless >www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >-- >WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ Ron Wallace Hahnron, Inc. 220 S. Jackson St. Addison, MI 49220 Phone: (517) 547-8410 Mobile: (517) 605-4542 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I think you guys are wrong on this. This is still a ptp band and it's licensed. So interference issues can be dealt with. As for links that are not correctly aimed. Why in the world would we want to give up on what could be a very useful rule change just because some minority (probably a very small minority) will likely screw up? Think, instead about how nice it would be if the manufacturers could modify today's relatively cheap 5 gig radios to do 6 gig. It's not all that much of a leap. But today MANY of you couldn't use that gear because you'd never be able to mount the antennas. Or because it's licensed gear it's still nearly twice the cost of unlicensed. It's easy to come up with reasons not to make changes. A man once told me that if no one ever changed we'd still all be eating with our fingers. Your points are valid but I don't think they are likely enough to happen that it'll matter. Or we can take steps now to deal with those issues. Again, it's a licensed band, interference isn't really an issue. You have protection against that. I've got a customer in Fresno that's got no place to go with 2.4 or 900. He's using VERY high end radios in the 5 gig bands. Even the big boy toys won't work well anymore. Even ptp links. He's getting by but it's getting much harder all of the time. He needs the 6 gig band to pull some ptp links around but can't use them because of the antenna size issue. And lets not forget about the cost part of the mix. 6' antennas are listing for $1800 in the EC cat without a raydome. That's for a good Radio Waves unit, but still. I really can't see a down side to trying that comes anywhere near the potential upside. I see a few that don't think it's a good thing. Do the rest of you agree with that? I happen to think that anything that gives us more flexibility without letting the bad people out there do bad things is a good thing to try to do. Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message ----- From: "Lonnie Nunweiler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
Nope. Sorry Gain comes from smaller beams. You can't make an antenna cover a smaller area without making it have a higher gain. Unless you make a REALLY crappy antenna. Believe me, I've been asking for something like that for years. After the 6th engineer at an antenna company told me the same thing I actually started to believe it ;-). Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: "Rick Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 4:39 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule I'm in favor of that How about just requiring tighter beam control on 6ghz stuff ? I'm sure a 2 foot dish could be restricted down to a tighter beam... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:37 PM To: FCC Discussion Cc: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I agree with you, Lonnie. So does JohnnyO, but he won't admit it publicly because of the Canadian factor :) The 400mw cards will help in the areas of sectors - more coverage in a wider area over a shorter distance, which will help, believe me. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lonnie Nunweiler Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 12:29 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's > a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very > long distances. > > For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often > kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or > the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road > it's a tough rule to deal with. > > I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the > person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna > rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue > interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss > out an APC (automatic power > control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > Thoughts? > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I agree with Lonnie. Kurt Fankhauser WaveLinc www.wavelinc.com 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 > APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance > is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the > transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your > lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. > > I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple > rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of > polluting it for close in shots. > > You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you > continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and > wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot > antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just > over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), > yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power > cards. > > In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take > the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas > if the rules get changed as you are proposing. > > I say that is a mistake. > > Regards, > Lonnie > > > On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a > > pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long > > distances. > > > > For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the > > deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building > > owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > > > Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a > > tough rule to deal with. > > > > I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person > > at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > > > I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for > > the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band > > due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power > > control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > > > Thoughts? > > Marlon > > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > > > > > -- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > -- > Lonnie Nunweiler > Valemount Networks Corporation > http://www.star-os.com/ > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > Kurt Fankhauser WaveLinc www.wavelinc.com 114 S. Walnut St. Bucyrus, OH 44820 419-562-6405 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
APC is useless if the antennas are not aimed properly or the distance is excessive for the antenna gain. These conditions will cause the transmitters to pump out full volume, and if the antennas are your lower gain variety that means spraying noise everywhere. I would recommend leaving the nice tight 6 foot dishes. That simple rule keeps the band clean for those long distance shots, instead of polluting it for close in shots. You guys have to start asking yourself what you are doing wrong if you continually need more bands. The growing trend to higher power and wide beam antennas has to stop. We are now doing a shot with 3 foot antennas and the CM9 Atheros radios in the 5 GHz band that is just over 52 miles and pulling -71 to -77 dB (variance through the day), yet I see people lining and almost drooling for the 400 mW high power cards. In short, most guys have little RF knowledge and they naturally take the easy way. I would expect to see 400 mW cards and patch antennas if the rules get changed as you are proposing. I say that is a mistake. Regards, Lonnie On 8/4/05, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a > pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long > distances. > > For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the > deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building > owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. > > Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a > tough rule to deal with. > > I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person > at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. > > I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for > the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band > due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power > control) requirement to use smaller antennas. > > Thoughts? > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services > 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! > 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam > > > > -- > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -- Lonnie Nunweiler Valemount Networks Corporation http://www.star-os.com/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule
I'm in favor of that How about just requiring tighter beam control on 6ghz stuff ? I'm sure a 2 foot dish could be restricted down to a tighter beam... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 7:37 PM To: FCC Discussion Cc: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] 6 foot 6ghz antenna rule Hi All, For those that don't know, the 6 gig band is licensed ptp only. It's a pretty cheap license and you can get a LOT of throughput for very long distances. For short (less than 50 miles :-) the 6' antenna requirement often kills the deal because of size limits on what towers can handle. Or the building owner doesn't want such large antennas etc. Certainly for something that just shoots a mile or three up the road it's a tough rule to deal with. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it but I've got the name of the person at the FCC that'll help us if we'd like to request a rule change. I'd like to suggest that we push for elimination of the 6' antenna rule for the 6 gig band. If people are worried about undue interference in the band due to the wider beam antennas we could toss out an APC (automatic power control) requirement to use smaller antennas. Thoughts? Marlon (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! 64.146.146.12 (net meeting) www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005 -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
