RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Man, I's can really read readen, but he a writen! Marlon, ya all wanted to mention Vasoline, but Mercy,he sliped it by with the K-Y! chuck -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Anyone Mind if I send this out Dear Sirs, Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me. KILLING me I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces. While I fully agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half. What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of cable and DSL. That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug it in and poof, you have internet. No truck roll. At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, LOW prices for it. Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless. 33' minimum antenna heights? Pre programmed exclusion zones? No accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage? Geolocation of EVERY CPE device? You've, via your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the operators from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. And who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside their houses, not putting them back up! There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. You say it's needed to help deal with local interference issues etc. But that's not likely the case. If WE can't hear the broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not likely interfere either. Especially at the very low signal levels you have built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to identify the owner of the ap. Then the people that need to figure out anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where. I'll already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too. Speaking of GPS. Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual antenna systems for EVERY customer? We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS one for each cpe under your plan. The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions. One of the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees. Now you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in EVERY installation? No thanks. We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's snow on the roof! The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help you with your standard. As it is, it looks like this standard was developed by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than high volume devices. Our industry has plenty of high margin products to choose from already. Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right conditions. What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products that will go through walls and trees etc. If our customers wanted us to put in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already be doing it. People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay $500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers. Thank you for you time, Marlon K. Schafer WISPA FCC committee chairman (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Open letter to the IEEE
Well done, Forbes. Forbes Mercy wrote: Ouch did I really say "embarrassed" instead of embraced" I really should proof this thing better, a few hanging sentences and other grammar goofs. Oh well I did with what time I had so everyone else please don't suggest my need for English 101. Forbes Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again we reiterate the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be within reason. The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs affordable. As we have been
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Here is a good link for those who which to understand the issue more fully. The authors are as qualified as you get and professionally known (I don't know Andrew though) by a number of us here so we can vouch for them. http://www.newamerica.net/publications/policy/reclaiming_the_vast_wastel and_why_unlicensed_use_of_white_space_in_the_tv_bands_will_not_cause_int erference_ Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Leary Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:48 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Ouch did I really say "embarrassed" instead of embraced" I really should proof this thing better, a few hanging sentences and other grammar goofs. Oh well I did with what time I had so everyone else please don't suggest my need for English 101. Forbes Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again we reiterate the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be within reason. The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs affordable. As we have been in the past, the Wireless Interne
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Bingo. Very nice edit Forbes with one exception: the "white space" does not refer to 700 MHz. Technically, it covers a range of more than 600 MHz sub 700 MHz, excluding a smattering of bands that will still be in use (not expected to be present in more than 120 markets) and a few other small channels reserved for things like public safety. Patrick Leary AVP WISP Markets Alvarion, Inc. o: 650.314.2628 c: 760.580.0080 Vonage: 650.641.1243 [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forbes Mercy Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:44 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Marlon, I kind of gutted your letter and changed it to one that acts a little more like it's from an organization then a person. Please don't take offense and feel free to change it. As you have explained to me, stepping back and looking at it from another person's eyes sometimes gets the same effect with a little calmer face. Forbes Mercy President - Washington Broadband, Inc. Dear Sirs, I represent the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA) an organization which has worked closely with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for many years. As you know we consist purely of WISP owners and have been pleased with the open ear provided by the FCC in our numerous opportunities for testimony and individual meetings. These meetings have resulted in a very fair and generous application of unlicensed frequencies. We feel that not only our industry has benefitted but many other applications have been invented providing American consumers new services, competition and pricing that helps keep inflation in check and advanced services accessible to all income levels. One of our agenda issues has been active inclusion in the use of the 700 MHZ frequencies known as "TV White Space". The ability to have a product that actually covers distance through vegetation is very exciting. We have battled the upper frequencies short range and low power but also have provided innovative services to the most rural areas. This is a testiment to the vision of the FCC with your successful experiment giving Americans unlicensed space just to see if we can succeed, we did and because of it are very grateful. We have considered the 700 MHZ space as the ultimate application for rural development and wish to convey some concerns over the preliminary specifications submitted. Our examples of this would be: 33' minimum antenna heights, pre-programmed exclusion zones, with no accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage. As you know provision of Wireless has little similarity with Radio Station methods of engineering and implementation. The specifications become even more focused with the suggested geolocation of every Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) device. These proposeals could eliminate 90% of the customers and easily as many WISP's from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. We had hoped for an in-house antenna system that does not require outdoor antennas which are confusing to renting land owners and asthestically challanging to homeowners. It redirects costs from a 'take home and plug in' service to a much higher model of 'a truck run for every install' scenario. Most of our operators have been pleased with the prospect of eliminating roll-up antennas, the high cost and hazard of roof-top work and the difficulty of employing installers, it triples the costs of operation and those funds, which could be used for more deployments, instead goes to unnecessary infrastructure and is passed on as higher costs to all income level Americans. WISPA feels there is no need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. We feel that the local interference issues have been dealt with professionally in our existing bands and the minimal abuse has been well documented by the FCC. Low signal strength have been built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. Of course we acknowledge the pressure from the TV Broadcasting organizations to have more stringent standards due to the proximity to their systems therefore a beacon system in which any cpe would be acceptible to identify the owner of the ap for faster recitification of problems should one occur. This uses the innovation we have embrassed and the costs will assure that any problem, albiet unlikely, can be quickly qwelled locally. This resolves our need for GPS units and other expensive testing equipment not available to all providers. It also eliminates the need for dual antennas and GPS's for each customer CPE, another expensive requirement not required of any other commercial or unlicensed frequency. Because of the need for some control to satisfy broadcasters the spectrum needs to be unlicensed with registration required with the FCC. Again we reiterate the need for inexpensive access to deploy thus hope any registration would be within reason. The innovation we have provided meets the President's goal of rural deployment without need for public funds and provides local responsiveness and competition that forces National providers to keep costs affordable. As we have been in the past, the Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help with how this new standard will 'meet the road' as we have since the inception of the unlicensed process. Our emphasis has always been on economical deployment and exclusion in favor of high profit d
RE: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE
Marlon, My opinion, but you should polish it considerably. Be more clear Marlon and concise, and totally eliminate the are-you-crazy tone. This letter is suitable if you are an individual, it is not suitable if being sent on behalf of WISPA. While impassioned, it really is not professional and will show WISPA in a bad light. As I said, it is just my opinion my friend. Patrick -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:47 AM To: wireless@wispa.org Subject: [WISPA] Open letter to the IEEE Anyone Mind if I send this out Dear Sirs, Please forgive the tone of this email, but you guys are killin' me. KILLING me I just read your latest proposal for the TV whitespaces. While I fully agree with much of what you've said (no personal portable devices, no auctions, TPC, cognitive radio, NO interference to grandma's TV or wireless mic's etc.) I'm shocked at the other half. What's needed is an unlicensed band that can be deployed similar to that of cable and DSL. That is, mail the customer a pre programmed radio, they plug it in and poof, you have internet. No truck roll. At the very least, we need easy to install and configure devices and LOW, LOW prices for it. Technically, your document is great and makes a tremendous amount of sense. Practically, it'll make any spectrum that's released all but useless. 33' minimum antenna heights? Pre programmed exclusion zones? No accounting for LOCAL terrain or foliage? Geolocation of EVERY CPE device? You've, via your standards proposal, eliminated 90% of the customers and 99% of the operators from using this band. Very few people will be able to justify the $500 (probably closer to $1000) installation costs of these systems. And who's going to want another ugly old TV antenna install at their houses? People are taking down those old ugly 30 to 100' crank up towers beside their houses, not putting them back up! There is NO need for the outdoor only, or minimum antenna height requirement. You say it's needed to help deal with local interference issues etc. But that's not likely the case. If WE can't hear the broadcasting system, neither can anyone else in the area and we'll not likely interfere either. Especially at the very low signal levels you have built into your standard for the incumbent detection mechanism. I'd be all in favor of a beacon system in which any cpe would be able to identify the owner of the ap. Then the people that need to figure out anything on a cpe side can come to me to get the data on who's where. I'll already have a name and address, I don't need GPS too. Speaking of GPS. Why in the world do you guys think that we can put in dual antenna systems for EVERY customer? We'll need the rec. antenna AND a GPS one for each cpe under your plan. The spectrum needs to be unlicensed (registered I could live with but don't like it, just more paperwork), it needs to be really inexpensive to deploy and it needs to be totally customizable based on LOCAL conditions. One of the very reasons to use sub GHz bands is the penetration through trees. Now you guys are suggesting that we get up there over much of the foliage in EVERY installation? No thanks. We'll go high when we need to, otherwise we want to stay out of site, out of the wind and easy to get to when there's snow on the roof! The Wireless Internet Service Provider's Association will be happy to help you with your standard. As it is, it looks like this standard was developed by and for companies that are interested in high margin devices rather than high volume devices. Our industry has plenty of high margin products to choose from already. Backhaul products are stable and plentiful. Everything from wireless, to copper to fiber is an option in the right conditions. What we need mostly right now is medium speed cheap products that will go through walls and trees etc. If our customers wanted us to put in towers that would get them up over most of the tree canopy we'd already be doing it. People want the internet but they aren't willing to pay $500 for it in any kind of marketable numbers. Thank you for you time, Marlon K. Schafer WISPA FCC committee chairman (509) 982-2181 Equipment sales (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)And I run my own wisp! [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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/ This footnote confirms that this email message has been scanned by PineApp Mail-SeCure for the presence of malicious cod
